Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

For the Burgh of Glasgow (Hillhead Division), in the room of the right honourable James Scott Cumberland Reid, K.C. (Lord of Appeal in Ordinary)—[Sir Arthur Young.]

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

Benefits (Special Leaflet)

Mr. Symonds: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has considered the suggestion made to him by the hon. Member for Cambridge that he should take special measures to call the attention of the war disabled to the various allowances and services now provided by his Department.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Marquand): Yes, Sir, I propose to send a personal letter to each disablement pensioner enclosing a special leaflet telling him of the various benefits for which he may be eligible and giving other information which may be useful to him. In the letters I am also inviting pensioners to discuss their problems with my welfare officers. By this action, I hope to ensure that every war pensioner receives the full benefits to which he is entitled. The first letters will be sent this week, but bearing in mind the very large number of letters involved and considerations of staff economy, it will be several months before the distribution is completed.

Mr. Symonds: May I put one question to the Minister which arises from his very welcome announcement? If a pensioner now discovers that he has for some time been eligible for one of, these extra allowances, and makes successful application for that allowance, will payment

be made to him from the date of his application or from the time he became eligible for the new allowance?

Mr. Marquand: It is the rule that pensions are payable from the date of the application. In very exceptional circumstances sometimes the rule is waived and the pension made somewhat retrospective.

Mr. Tolley: Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider making a detailed announcement through the national Press and the wireless so that not only may disabled men know of the situation, but the general misunderstanding which has taken place as a result of misrepresentation may be removed?

Mr. Marquand: I hope that this Question and the answer will serve to draw attention to what has been done.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braith-waite: Is the Minister aware that the action which he has announced cannot obscure the fact that the whole question of disability pensions should now be reviewed and a Select Committee appointed?

Artificial Limbs (Research)

Mr. Ralph Morley: asked the Minister of Pensions if he will make any statement as to how far research into design and performance of artificial limbs and appliances and improvements in the limb-fitting services has progressed; and what improvements can be expected in the near future.

Mr. Marquand: A research unit at Roehampton works under the direction of the Standing Advisory Committee on Artificial Limbs of which Sir Charles Darwin is Chairman. The Second Report of the Committee issued in April this year shows the general lines on which research is developing. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a note on the practical results and the improvements which may be expected in the near future.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this research committee has consulted with expert firms like Desoutter Brothers as regards repairs to limbs already issued?

Mr. Marquand: The Committee is a committee of experts and has all the expertise available for its use.

Following is the information:

RESEARCH WORK ON ARTIFICIAL LIMBS

(1) A number of new arm appliances have been added to the existing list and others are being redesigned and improved.

(2) A new artificial arm of improved design has been developed. Six trial orders have been placed, and should these prove satisfactory in all respects, the arm will go into general production.

(3) A new method of suspension of an artificial leg by suction socket has been developed and is under trial by patients; the trials are most encouraging.

(4) A socket of new design for above knee amputation has been produced and is under trial by over 100 patients.

(5) Two new mechanical hands have been submitted by the contractors to the Ministry and are under trial.

(6) An apparatus has been designed and is under experimental test for measuring comparatively the thrust which walking imposes on both the artificial and the sound limb. By means of this apparatus it is hoped that much valuable information will be obtained.

(7) Work is proceeding on the improvement of crutches, new ideas for which have recently been received by the Research Department.

Widows (Children's Allowances)

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Minister of Pensions if he will review the allowances paid to war widows in respect of children.

Mr. Marquand: These allowances are kept udder continual review and at present compare favourably with similar allowances provided under the other social service schemes.

Mr. Skeffington: Will my right hon. Friend particularly consider the case of the woman with two or three children who, whilst she has been helped by the increases in recent years for which all pensioners are most grateful, must sometimes supplement her income by earning money outside—a step which in the case of larger families is rather undesirable?

Disability Pensions

Mr. Bowden: asked the Minister of Pensions how long a disability pension is payable to a pensioner who has suffered from a tropical disease after medical examination has shown a negative test for the disease.

Mr. Marquand: The disability pension payable to a pensioner who suffers from

a tropical disease would not necessarily be affected by the fact that pathological tests became negative, since pension is assessed on loss of functional capacity, which may persist after the negative test.

Mr. Bowden: asked the Minister of Pensions what additional help can be given to a pensioner who is in receipt of a small disability pension only but through illness finds himself in need.

Mr. Marquand: If the illness arises from the war disablement and the pensioner needs treatment which prevents him from working, allowances at the 100 per cent. pension rate are payable. Sickness benefit under the National Insurance Act would also normally be payable in addition. Pensioners who have not acquired entitlement to sick benefit normally receive an allowance of 20s. per week while undergoing treatment. The normal social service provisions are, of course, available where the illness does not arise out of the war disablement. If the hon. Member has in mind any particular case of hardship and will let me have particulars, I shall be glad to arrange for the pensioner to be interviewed by one of my welfare officers.

Final Awards (Review)

Mr. Willis: asked the Minister of Pensions if he will state the number of final awards reviewed and increased up to 1945 and for each year since.

Mr. Marquand: Up to March, 1945, the number of final awards reviewed and increased because of material worsening of the war disablement was 21,199. The numbers in the financial years 1945–46, 1946–47, 1947–48 were 260,377 and 716 respectively. During the seven months of the present financial year 827 final awards have been increased, bringing the total to 23,379. In addition some 5,500 final awards have been reopened automatically during the past few years because of changes in the scheduled assessment of certain disabilities, notably following the Hancock Committee's report on the Assessment of Specified Injuries.

Mr. Willis: Can my right hon. Friend say whether this is one of the rights of a disabled man which will be stressed in the letter that is to be sent out?

Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir. In the leaflet special attention is drawn to the possibility of the review of a final award in case of material worsening. A special leaflet for 1914–18 war pensioners will be part of the issue to which I referred earlier.

Major Tufton Beamish: Will the Minister pay tribute to the excellent work of the British Legion in supporting the cases of men which are taken up with the Ministries?

Mr. Marquand: I do not understand why that question should be necessary. I have said many times that we much appreciate the work which the British Legion does.

Mr. Leslie Hale: asked the Minister of Pensions why he has refused to consider the case of A. B. Coward, 54/2nd Avenue, Limeside, Hollins, Oldham, on the ground that he has no power to review any cases where a tribunal's final decision has been given; and whether this represents any change in the recent practice of his Department.

Mr. Marquand: As I explained in my letter of 10th September, to the hon. Member, the arrangements for special review which were announced in the House on 25th July, 1946, apply only to cases in which decisions were given by the tribunals before August, 1946, by which time certain legal principles had been clarified by the High Court. The Tribunal's decision on Mr. Coward's appeal was given on 30th January, 1947; no fresh evidence has been furnished and I have no power to review the Tribunal's decision. My letter to the hon. Member does not represent any change in the recent practice of my predecessors.

Mr. Hale: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in recent months a series of decisions by Mr. Justice Denning sitting as pensions judge has shifted the onus of proof and altered the law; does he appreciate that there are many cases which now present a prima facie case of miscarriage of justice because those principles were not applied, and will he not take power to himself to review any case in which he thinks it is proper to do so?

Mr. Marquand: My answer takes fully into account this change in the law which

has been handed down by Mr. Justice Denning. If the hon. Member reads my answer tomorrow, I think he will see that that is so. Of course, we are always prepared to look very closely at any case in which fresh evidence can be adduced even if the decision was given after Mr. Justice Denning's ruling.

Commander Noble: Would not the Minister agree that this Question and others on the Order Paper addressed to him today emphasise the need for a Select Committee on Service pensions as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) supported by a large number of Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Marquand: On the contrary. I should have thought that any fair-minded person would have concluded from my answers that the position is thoroughly under control.

Mr. Hale: Would the Minister say whether he is prepared to look carefully at a case of this kind, because he has power to review?

Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir. I will look at the case, certainly.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Where a constituent approaches an hon. Member who considers that there ought to be some reconsideration of a case, would the Minister undertake to see that that case is reviewed?

Mr. Marquand: I always look very carefully at these cases. Whatever I am able to do within the law, I will always try to do. I cannot exceed the functions which have been given to me by this House.

Special Hardship Allowances

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is satisfied that the operative date of 1st July, 1945, fixed in respect of special hardship allowances to partially disabled pensioners of the 1914–18 War has not resulted in undue hardship; and whether he will now consider amending this date to an earlier one.

Mr. Marquand: The date in question was chosen as being the most favourable to 1914 War pensioners, generally, employment at that time being at its highest.


This provision has been in operation for only a short time and our experience is not yet sufficient to enable definite conclusions to be drawn. I am however watching the position closely.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

National Service Men

Mr. A. R. W. Low: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that National Service men serving at home or in Europe who volunteer to join the Regular Army are in many cases immediately posted away from the unit in which they hoped to serve as Regulars; and if, in view of the effects which this practice must have in discouraging Regular recruiting, he will cause it to cease.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): It is unfortunately not always possible to ensure that National Service men who volunteer as Regulars shall remain in the unit of their choice. This is due to the necessity of making the best use of our limited Regular manpower and particularly to the need for maintaining Regular strengths in those theatres to which it is uneconomical to post National Service men. With these qualifications, every effort is made to meet the wishes of the National Service man on first becoming a Regular.

Mr. Low: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the limiting factor in the Army's growing efficiency is the number of Regular soldiers who have volunteered, and would it not be wise to change the rule so that men who volunteer should be allowed to stay in the units in which they decide to volunteer?

Mr. Shinwell: Subject to what I have already said—the qualification to which I have referred—the need for recruits in certain theatres is so great that we simply cannot afford to change the rule at present.

Shorncliffe Camp, Barracks

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the lack of heating and of clothes drying facilities at a section of the Army Barracks at Shorncliffe Camp used for the reception of young

conscripts; and whether he will communicate with the camp authorities with a view to removing the causes of complaint.

Mr. Shinwell: The facilities for heating and clothes drying in the Army Barracks at Shorncliffe Camp are regarded as adequate. The extent to which they can be used is naturally governed by the allotments of fuel to the Barracks. Allotments are not rigid and the local military authorities have wide discretion to vary them to meet special requirements. There is therefore no reason why arrangements at Shorncliffe should be inadequate. I am, however, investigating the matter.

Mr. Skinnard: Will the Minister take into consideration the fact that some of the young entry soldiers at this camp are in low medical grades and that clothes drying facilities, especially for men who have previously suffered from lung diseases, are of great importance?

Mr. Shinwell: I propose to investigate the matter.

C.I.G.S. (Appointment)

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for War why a retired officer has been given the appointment of Chief of the Imperial General Staff; and whether no serving officer could be found with adequate experience and qualifications.

Mr. Shinwell: The distinguished officer who has been appointed Chief of the Imperial General Staff was selected as the officer most suited to the post

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: While entirely agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman and desiring to pay the highest tribute to General Slim, both as an officer and as a man, may I ask him whether I can have an answer to the second part of my Question, and whether it does not rather reflect on those serving that a serving officer cannot be found for this post?

Mr. Shinwell: All that the appointment of General Slim has met with widespread satisfaction.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is not the true implication of this Question that officers of such outstanding ability should not be allowed to retire?

Mr. Shinwell: There is something to be said for that, but we have always to consider that some who are younger want to go up.

Major Beamish: Why has the right hon. Gentleman sunk his scruples against putting himself in the hands of the experts?

Mr. Shinwell: I always take note of experts. Nevertheless, I exercise a wise discrimination in their selection.

N.A.A.F.I. (Trading Results)

Mr. Low: asked the Secretary of State for War what was the world profit made by N.A.A.F.I. in the last full year's trading; what was the profit at home, in Germany, Austria, the Mediterranean and the Far East, respectively; and whether the N.A.A.F.I.'s decision to increase the prices in different theatres to cover the average cost of freight and insurance incurred on goods to that theatre was approved by him.

Mr. Shinwell: The N.A.A.F.I. Accounts for 14 months ended 1st November, 1947, are being placed before the N.A.A.F.I. Council this month, and a copy will be placed in the Library. Details of trading results in different theatres are not published. No such new decision as is suggested has been made, as N.A.A.F.I., being an ordinary trading organisation, has always had to cover the cost of freight and insurance in its prices.

Mr. Low: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in certain theatres, particularly in Germany, N.A.A.F.I. prices seem to those stationed there much higher than they should be, and would not the best way to reassure them be to have the N.A.A.F.I. accounts published to the world, so that people can see whether undue profits are being made or not?

Mr. Shinwell: As the hon. Gentleman is probably aware, I conducted a personal investigation into the alleged high prices in B.A.O.R., but we have to take account of certain charges imposed on N.A.A.F.I., which lead to higher prices.

Commissions

Mr. McAdam: asked the Secretary of State for War the number of officers' commissions granted during 1947 to ex-university students and those who have

public school education qualifications; and the number granted to those who have not passed through either a public school or university, respectively.

Mr. Shinwell: During 1947, approximately 10,000 commissions were granted. To obtain the information asked for, it would be necessary to compile a special return after inspection of the records of each of these officers. I do not consider that the work involved would be justified.

Mr. Tolley: In my right hon. Friend's opinion has any discrimination been used in this matter?

Mr. Shinwell: Certainly not. I have personally attended the War Office Commission Selection Board, and I am very well satisfied with the procedure.

Discharge by Purchase

Mr. John Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for War how many cadets at Sandhurst have bought themselves out of the Army in recent months.

Mr. Shinwell: Nine cadets at the Royal Military Academy have purchased their discharge since the concession was reintroduced in March, 1948.

Mr. J. Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for War how many men have bought themselves out of the Army since this right was reinstated after the war.

Mr. Shinwell: Up to the end of September, 1,911 men had been discharged under the scheme for discharge by purchase, since this privilege was reintroduced. This includes a number of free discharges after completion of 16 years' service, or on extreme compassionate grounds. Of the total of 1,911, 1,567 actually purchased their discharge; the remaining 344 were granted a free discharge.

Officers (Resignations)

Mr. Low: asked the Secretary of State for War the number of Regular officers who have asked and have been given permission to resign their commissions since 1945; and how many belonging to each rank.

Mr. Shinwell: Since August, 1945, 2,088, made up as follows: Major-Generals and above, 4; Brigadiers and


Colonels, 79; Lieutenant-Colonels, 346; Majors, 1,082; Captains, 424; and Subalterns, 153.

Mr. Low: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the very large number of people who have decided to leave the Army at this critical stage?

Mr. Shinwell: No doubt they have very good reasons for doing so, and we do our best to make up the leeway.

General Sir George Jeffreys: Is it not a fact that these officers who are resigning their commissions represent the number of officers who but for the war years might have done so in ordinary circumstances?

Mr. Shinwell: I have no doubt that that may be so, but, when someone goes, we always find that someone else can take his place.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Has the right hon. Gentleman asked his Department for the reason why these officers are resigning, and is it not because they are underpaid and lack proper married quarters?

Mr. Shinwell: There are, of course, obvious difficulties in regard to married quarters, and sometimes there are complaints about pay, but, on the whole, the officers are quite contented with their conditions.

Teachers (Quarters)

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that, with respect to the Peronne Lines County Modern School, Catterick Camp, transferred from the War Department to the North Riding local education authority on 1st April, 1948, the War Department offered to provide accommodation for the headmaster-elect, but have decided to provide a warrant officer's quarter and have declined to give an assurance to the authority that an officer's quarter will be provided for him as soon as circumstances permit; and if he will review this position.

Mr. Shinwell: The local education authority was offered the only quarter available—namely, the warrant officer's quarter previously occupied by the outgoing Army head-teacher. The head-

master of this school is not a War Department employee and the Department is under no obligation to provide quarters for him. The offer of the only accommodation available was made with the sole aim of helping the local education authority, and purely as an interim measure until they could provide the necessary quarters for the master who is employed by them.

Sir T. Dugdale: Has the Secretary of State consulted the Minister of Education on this point; is he aware that, late in May, the Director of Army Education intimated to the local education authority that, had the officers' quarters been available at that time, no doubt, the headmaster would have accepted such quarters; and that the headmaster had accepted the warrant officers' quarters on the assumption that that was an interim measure?

Mr. Shinwell: Obviously, it is an interim measure until proper quarters can be provided, but there are great difficulties in providing the desired accommodation.

Sir T. Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for War whether an officer's quarter is provided for a civilian headmaster who is seconded from the staff of a local education authority for service in Army Children's Schools abroad.

Mr. Shinwell: Teachers seconded from local education authorities in this country for service in Army Children's Schools overseas, will be War Department employees and their salary, allowances and quartering will be a War Department responsibility. They will be treated as of officer status and will be eligible for appropriate privileges. It must be realised, however, that except for single male teachers, who will probably be accommodated in an officers' mess, the allotment of quarters will depend upon local conditions, and the standard of quarters varies.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY

Recruiting (Questionnaire)

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the questionnaire on the subject of Territorial Army recruiting which he sent to all


Members of Parliament under cover of his letter, dated 27th July, 1948, together with a table showing the number of Members who replied in the negative to questions 1 (i) and 2.

Mr. Shinwell: I see no necessity for doing this.

Major Beamish: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that, while he can rely on the wholehearted support of hon. Members of the Opposition, some 150 hon. Members on his own side of the House are not prepared to support this campaign?

Mr. Shinwell: I note that I can rely on the unqualified support of hon. Members of the Opposition.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would the right hon. Gentleman give the figures of the cost of these recruiting meetings, and state how many recruits have been gained for that expenditure?

Mr. Shinwell: If my hon. Friend will put down a Question, I will try to answer it.

Annual Training (Paid Leave)

Mr. Ralph Morley: asked the Secretary of State for War how many firms are refusing leave with pay to soldiers in the Territorial Army for their annual training; and what action he is taking in such cases.

Mr. Shinwell: No statistics are available. Every effort has been made to encourage employers to grant extra leave, preferably with pay, to volunteer members of the Territorial Army employed by them. The majority of employers are, I am glad to say, willing to give extra leave for the purpose of attending Territorial Army camps. I do not consider that it would be desirable to attempt to exercise any form of compulsion.

Mr. Morley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a good many firms are not giving leave with pay for this purpose, and can he bring some form of Ministerial pressure to bear in such cases?

Mr. Shinwell: I am aware that some firms are disinclined to make the concession—probably for very good reasons—but I would hesitate to bring pressure to bear on them.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Would the right hon. Gentleman say if his answer applies equally to the nationalised services and industries?

Mr. Shinwell: That matter is under consideration.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Can my right hon. Friend say why, if we all agree that these men are entitled to their pay during periods of voluntary training, the State should not pay?

Mr. Shinwell: Of course, the State does pay the Army pay.

Mr. Sidney Shephard: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in his broadcast, he gave the impression that all local authorities were both paying their men, and giving them leave? Will he confirm or deny that?

Mr. Shinwell: I am not aware of any local authority which has refused to grant the concession.

Mr. Shephard: Has the right hon. Gentleman made inquiries? Does he know it for a fact?

Mr. Shinwell: Of course, we do make inquiries.

Mr. Low: As the Minister mentioned that there might be a good reason for some firms refusing such leave, will he say what he considers to be a good reason?

Mr. Shinwell: It may be that a small employer cannot afford it.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN GENERALS (TRIAL)

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: asked the Secretary of State for War what other terms of reference were embodied in the instructions of the medical officers who visited the German Field-Marshals in January beyond the question of whether trial would adversely affect their health; and what was their reply.

Mr. Shinwell: The Army Medical Board was instructed to submit a general report on the health of the officers and an opinion as to whether it would adversely affect their health to be tried as war criminals. The Board gave a full


medical report on the condition of the officers, and stated that, in their opinion, it would adversely affect their health to be tried as war criminals. Later, in April, after the officers had been independently examined by the Home Office medical officers, the Army Medical Board agreed with the Home Office medical officers that three of the accused were fit to stand trial, but that the fourth was not.

Mr. Nicholson: asked the Secretary of State for War for what reason the German Field-Marshals were first sent from Bridgend to the American zone of Germany; and why they were thereafter handed over by the Americans for detention in the British zone.

Mr. Shinwell: Two of these officers were sent to Nuremburg at the request of the United States authorities to give evidence on behalf of the defence in the trial of the German General Staff which was then proceeding. On reaching Nuremburg, they were interviewed by defence counsel. In consequence of advice then given to them, they declined to give evidence, as they were entitled to. They were made available to the United States authorities as witnesses on the understanding that, after their evidence was completed, they were to be returned to the British zone, because by that time all the remaining generals who were prisoners of war in the United Kingdom would have returned to Germany.

Mr. Nicholson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why, when they were in the hands of the Americans, they were not treated as witnesses but as criminals?

Mr. Shinwell: That is a matter for the Americans.

Mr. George Ward: asked the Secretary of State for War why his Department's doctors did not accompany the Home Office doctors when they examined the German Field Marshals in April, 1948.

Mr. Shinwell: It was considered that the two examinations should be independent. The Army Medical Board expressed agreement with the findings of the Home Office doctors on the question of fitness to stand trial.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

Cowsheds, Ashford (Painting)

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning why his Department in Ashford, Kent, is advising farmers who are erecting cowsheds to paint them pink.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Silkin): No such advice has been given at Ashford by any officer of my Department.

Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that three such cases have occurred in my immediate vicinity; and, furthermore, will he bear in mind that cows are very conservative animals? Will he ensure that this is not an insidious attempt to socialise their minds?

Mr. Silkin: I have a complete alibi. I have not been anywhere near Ashford, and if any such advice was given, it was not given by any member of my Department. I am very interested to hear of the politics of the cows.

High Wycombe

Mr. John E. Haire: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what changes are intended in the Abercrombie Plan relating to High Wycombe; and when it is intended to proceed with the plans indicated for the borough in that Report.

Mr. Silkin: The Memorandum on London Regional Planning published by my Department in May, 1947, made it clear that my acceptance of an expansion of High Wycombe was subject to my being satisfied, from outline plans based on adequate surveys, that the town could be expanded as proposed. The work involved has not yet been completed.

Fylingdale Moor

Mr. Spearman: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning when he expects to be able to announce his decision concerning the future of Fylingdale Moor.

Mr. Silkin: There are some aspects of this matter requiring further consideration, but I hope to be able to announce a decision before long.

Mr. Spearman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as long ago as July, 1946, the then Secretary of State for War promised, almost in those words, that a decision could be expected soon; and, in view of the great feeling locally, will he do everything to expedite a very quick decision?

Mr. Silkin: I certainly will, but, of course, since 1946, the machinery of public inquiry has been instituted, and that does take some time.

Mr. Turton: Will the Minister publish a report of the public inquiry when the decision is made?

Mr. Silkin: That is not usual.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE

Retirement Pensions (Married Women)

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Minister of National Insurance if he will arrange for the payment of retirement pensions at the rate of 16s. per week to married women who have reached the age of 65 in cases where their husbands have also reached this age, but are continuing in employment.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. Steele): No, Sir. The provision of such a pension to married women not them selves insured would be contrary to the principle of the National Insurance Act that a married couple should be treated as a team. Any pension payable to a wife in right of her husband's insurance must depend directly on her husband's pension position.

Mr. Baldwin: In view of the shortage of labour, would the Minister agree that every encouragement should be given to these old age pensioners to continue at work rather than penalise them when they stop work?

Mr. Steele: That is, of course, the basis of the new principle adopted in the pensions scheme.

Official Leaflets (Size)

Mr. Symonds: asked the Minister of National Insurance if he will arrange for regulations, pamphlets, leaflets, explanatory memoranda, etc., about the National

Insurance schemes to be printed on paper of one size only, for the convenience of all who have to handle them and need to file them for reference.

Mr. Steele: Explanatory leaflets are at present printed on standard sizes of paper. The most economical standard size available is used. I appreciate the convenience of having leaflets of the same size and uniform with that of regulations, and the point will be borne in mind when new or reprinted material is to be issued.

Industrial Diseases (Report)

Mr. D. J. Williams: asked the Minister of National Insurance when he received the Report of the Departmental Committee on Industrial Diseases; and what action he proposes to take on it.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): The Report which is dated 19th October, 1948, has now been published, and copies are available in the Vote Office. I am now giving consideration to the terms of the Report, and as a first step I have asked the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, the statutory body set up to advise me on matters relating to the Industrial Injuries Scheme, for their advice on certain questions arising on it.

Statistics

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister of National Insurance if he will state, to the nearest convenient date, the total number in receipt of old age pensions; the total amounts received; and the same figures for the Boroughs of West Ham and Edmonton, respectively.

Mr. Steele: At 5th July, 1948, there were in payment about 4,150,000 contributory old age pensions and 450,000 non-contributory old age pensions, at an estimated weekly cost of approximately £5 million. I regret that separate figures for the boroughs of Edmonton and West Ham are not available.

Mr. A. Lewis: asked the Minister of National Insurance if he will state, for the most. convenient week, the total number of family allowances that were paid and cash received by recipients; and the same figures for the Boroughs of West Ham and Edmonton.

Mr. Steele: At 25th October, 1948, approximately 2,850,000 families were


receiving family allowances in respect of 4,530,000 children in Great Britain. This represents a weekly payment of rather over £1,100,000. I regret that separate figures for the Boroughs of West Ham and Edmonton are not available.

Dependency Allowances

Mr. Spearman: asked the Minister of National Insurance (1) why disability pension drawn in respect of an unemployed man's dependants is deducted from unemployment benefit;
(2) why Mr. Broadbent, 5, Palace Hill, Scarborough, an unemployed registered disabled man, is only drawing 46s. a week whereas a non-disabled man would draw 49s. 6d. a week.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Any dependency allowance which is payable under the National Insurance Act to a disability pensioner is, under the National Insurance (Overlapping Benefits) Provisional Regulations, 1948, adjusted by the amount of any similar dependency allowance which is payable with his disability pension. This is based on the principle that double payment should not be made for the same dependant. These regulations are at present being considered by the National Insurance Advisory Committee.

Mr. Spearman: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is an anomaly that disabled Service men should receive less than non-disabled Service men?

Mr. Griffiths: This principle was laid down in the Beveridge Report, and has been accepted as the principle upon which the scheme works. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will realise that these overlapping regulations work both ways. On the one hand, they make possible a duplication of benefits, and, on the other, they lay down that, for dependency, only one benefit shall be paid.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Cannot the Minister see to it that, without going outside the principles of no duplication, the larger of the two possible benefits is, in fact, always the one paid?

Mr. Griffiths: That is, in fact, provided for.

Mr. John McKay: asked the Minister of National Insurance if he is

aware that prior to 5th July, 1948, an ex-Service man receiving a disablement pension with an allowance for his wife, received full National Insurance sickness benefit without any deduction and that now under the new Insurance Act his benefits are reduced by the amount of his wife's allowance in connection with his disability pension; and if he is prepared to consider amending the present Act so that such deductions from full sickness benefits will be abolished.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply just given to the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman). The matter will come up for review when I receive the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee. I would, however, point out that as no dependency allowances were payable with sickness benefit before 5th July, no disability pensioner can be adversely affected by this adjustment.

Mr. McKay: Is not the Minister aware that, while that is so, civilians, nevertheless, do get an increase of 16s. 0d., and that, arising out of this, many of these disabled men are, on occasions losing practically £2 or £3 a week in wages due to their disability? Does he not think that, taking those things into consideration, there should be some arrangement whereby those paying the same contribution draw the same benefit?

Mr. Griffiths: I have already indicated that these regulations are being considered by the National Insurance Advisory Committee, but the whole basis of the Act is that dependency shall only be met once out of these funds.

Mr. Chetwynd: Will my right hon. Friend also consult the Minister of Pensions in these matters?

Mr. Driberg: Can my right hon. Friend say how often the National Insurance Advisory Committee report to him on these and other matters?

Mr. Griffiths: Very often. All the regulations are placed before them. When they make their report, I have to publish it—I will publish a report on this—and, at the same time, I have to indicate whether I accept it or not. They meet very often, and give an excellent service to ourselves and the people concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE (MERCHANT NAVY)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Labour whether in view of the assurances given by officers of his Department to a young man, particulars of whom have been sent to him, that service with the Merchant Navy would count as National Service, he will cancel the steps now taken to call him up to the Armed Forces, notwithstanding 18 months' service with the Merchant Navy.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): Since I wrote to the hon. Member recently about this case, I have given it further consideration. There is doubt as to whether this young man was given the right information by a local office of the Ministry, as a result of which he interrupted his normal career for service in the Merchant Navy. He did this in good faith, having been informed that such service would discharge his national service obligations. In these circumstances, it has been decided not to proceed with calling him up for service in His Majesty's Forces now that he has left the Merchant Navy.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am obliged.

Mr. Beechman: Would the Minister give serious consideration to the possibility of service in the Mercantile Marine counting as National Service, because many of us think it certainly should?

Mr. Ness-Edwards: That matter has already been considered in the House, and the view of the House, I think, is against it.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGHT BAKING (NEGOTIATIONS)

Mr. Symonds: asked the Minister of Labour if he can make any statement about the negotiations between the two sides of the baking industry for the abolition of night baking.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I understand negotiations are still proceeding.

Mr. Symonds: As this matter is becoming a hardy annual, would my right hon. Friend give every encouragement and assistance he can to both sides

to reach an agreement, because nothing but such an agreement will solve the labour problems of this industry?

Mr. Isaacs: When either or both sides approach the Ministry of Labour for assistance it will be readily granted, but at the moment they are proceeding under their own steam, and they will be meeting again on the 17th.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (WAGES AND SALARIES)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the disparity in wages and salaries now received by employees in the nationalised industries as compared with the remuneration received when these industries or services were privately owned; and if he will set up an inquiry into the situation.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The answer to the first part of the Question is that there have been variations in wages and salaries in industry generally in the period during which certain industries have been nationalised. The answer to the second part of the Question is, "No, Sir." In accordance with the policy of the Government, the determination of terms and conditions of employment is the responsibility of the two sides of the industry concerned.

Sir T. Moore: Can the Prime Minister explain why a head waiter in a nationalised railway hotel with 25 years' service and 15 years' service in that grade has his pay reduced from £10 a week to £3 17s. 6d. a week without any warning whatsoever, and why a hospital secretary across the road has his pay increased from £400 a year to £1,250 a year under nationalisation? The thing is inconsistent.

The Prime Minister: Like the head waiter, I have had no warning of this.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Anglo-American Council on Productivity

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in addition to the F.B.I. and the T.U.C., he will


consider appointing the Institution of Production Engineers to act in an advisory capacity in connection with the Anglo-American Productivity Council, in view of the valuable assistance the Institution can offer.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): The Anglo-American Council on Productivity is an autonomous body, set up by industry, and it is for the Council itself to decide what it wishes to do.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Has not the Chancellor any authority to advise the body concerned to obtain the services of an institution which has a membership of over 7,000 who would be helpful?

Sir S. Cripps: Absolutely none.

Mr. Erroll: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made by the Anglo-American Council on Productivity; and when their report will be published.

Sir S. Cripps: His Majesty's Government have no responsibility for the Anglo-American Council on Productivity.

British Properties, Burma

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the value of British firms and property that have been expropriated, or scheduled for expropriation by the Burmese Government.

Sir S. Cripps: The British interests concerned are now negotiating with the Government of Burma, and there is nothing that I can usefully say.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Does that answer mean that the Government are not interested in these very valuable properties? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance at least that should the owners of these properties approach the Government they will receive its full support?

Sir S. Cripps: I did not say anything of the sort. What I said was that they were now negotiating with the Government of Burma, and there is nothing that I can usefully say at the moment.

Mr. Hogg: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that

he will at least see that the four principles which he laid down as the principles of compensation within the meaning of the Thakin U correspondence will be adhered to and insisted upon by His Majesty's Government?

Sir S. Cripps: If any representations are made to us subsequently we shall, of course, take them into account.

Mr. Nicholson: Does the Chancellor mean that the British Embassy have received no communication from these firms?

Sir S. Cripps: As far as I am aware, there has been no request for us to give any assistance.

Financial Agreement, Burma

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason His Majesty's Government have made a grant of £2,000,000 of hard currencies to the Burmese Government.

Sir S. Cripps: No such grant has been made. I assume that the hon. and gallant Member is referring to the recent Agreement under which the Government of Burma may purchase up to £2 million of hard currencies from the central reserves between July and December of this year, to meet her essential needs. Burma is a member of the sterling area.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say with what form of currency Burma pays for this hard currency?

Sir S. Cripps: Burma will presumably pay in sterling.

Anglo-Italian Financial Agreement

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations have been made to the Italian Government urging them to fulfil the terms of the Anglo-Italian Financial Agreement.

Sir S. Cripps: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) in answer to a similar Question on this subject on Tuesday, 2nd November.

Birmingham Municipal Bank

Mr. Keeling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that whereas residents in the Birmingham area can make deposits of £2,000 at 2¾ per cent. in the Birmingham Municipal Bank, £2,500 at 2½ per cent. in a Trustee Savings Bank outside Birmingham, and £2,000 at 2½ per cent. in the Post Office Savings Bank, a total of £6,500, a person living outside that area is restricted to the two last-named deposits, totalling £4,500; and whether, for the sake of impartiality and in the interests of National Savings, to which the Birmingham Bank has contributed over £50,000,000, he will direct the Bank of England to recommend the Birmingham Bank to accept deposits from all residents in Great Britain.

Sir S. Cripps: The answer to the first part of the Question is, "Yes"; but Birmingham is not the only locality with facilities for savings additional to the Post Office and Trustee Savings Banks. The answer to the second part is, "No, Sir."

Mr. Keeling: Is the Chancellor aware that except possibly for the savings banks to which he refers, no other bank and no building society will give as much as 2½ per cent. on deposits? What have Birmingham people and the people of these other localities which he has mentioned done to deserve so much better treatment than the remaining inhabitants of this island?

Sir S. Cripps: That is a matter for the municipal bank, I think.

Mr. Wyatt: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that when other towns tried to start a municipal bank like the Birmingham bank, the Tory administration of the day refused them permission to do so?

Mr. Erroll: Will the Minister encourage other towns to set up municipal banks?

Advertising Expenditure (Limitation)

Mr. Sidney Shephard: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he intends to continue the voluntary limitation on advertising expenditure after the expiration of the period originally fixed.

Sir S. Cripps: I am considering the future of this scheme in consultation with the Federation of British Industries.

Mr. Shephard: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that advertising schedules are usually prepared many months in advance, and will he come to an early decision in this matter?

Sir S. Cripps: I hope to do so.

Mr. Peter Roberts: Has this limitation had any really beneficial results?

Sir S. Cripps: Certainly.

Loans to Foreign Countries

Mr. C. S. Taylor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give particulars of loans made by this country to other countries since the outbreak of war in 1939 up to the present date with particulars of interest received.

Sir S. Cripps: With permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table of the loans referred to by the hon. Member.

Following is the table:


ADVANCES TO ALLIED GOVERNMENTS, 1939–45 WAR


—
Outstanding at 9th November 1948
Interest received



£
£


China
…
12,662,000
816,000


Czechoslovakia
…
19,178,000
—


France
…
99,685,000
—


Netherlands
…
45,000,000
445,000


Poland
…
57,500,000
—


Turkey
…
31,022,000
5,599,000


U.S.S.R
…
33,750,000
5,429,000


TOTALS
…
298,797,000
12,289,000

In addition, an interest-free loan of £10,000,000 was made to Greece.

Customs and Excise (Prosecution)

Sir Wavell Wakefield: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why, in the case of Mr. G. G. W. Farquharson, of 196, Great Portland Street, W.1, particulars of whose case he has been given, the magistrate trying the case was not informed of the intention of the Customs and Excise Department to seize Mr. Farquharson's motorcar in addition to the fine imposed; to what extent this action


is customary; and if he will give instructions in the future for the magistrate to be told of the intentions of the Customs and Excise Department, thereby avoiding the possibility of excessive punishment.

Sir S. Cripps: The section of the Spirits Act, 1880, under which Mr. Farquharson was prosecuted for unlawfully removing spirits, provides for the forfeiture of the vehicle used for removing them, and there is nothing unusual about its enforcement. There was no need for the prosecution to call the magistrate's attention to the forfeiture provisions, and the solicitor who defended Mr. Farquharson and may be presumed to have been familiar with the situation evidently took the same view. In the circumstances, I see no need to interfere with the discretion of the Department.

Sir W. Wakefield: Is it not wrong that the Customs and Excise should have the power of perhaps doubling or trebling the fine imposed by a magistrate? Ought not the magistrate to have the sole power of deciding what punishment a man should or should not have?

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. Parliament decided in 1880 in the contrary direction.

Mr. Hogg: Would it not be more equitable if the magistrate, when he inflicted the penalty, had the knowledge whether or not the Department had decided to enforce that particular provision?

Sir S. Cripps: No. No doubt, he makes his decisions in the light of the Act of Parliament which gives that power.

Sir W. Wakefield: In view of the most unsatisfactory nature of this matter, I wish to give notice that I shall raise it on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Central Office of Information (Poster)

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the poster issued by the Central Office of Information displayed at the "Raising the Standard Exhibition" staged at Charing Cross Underground Station which advertised the goods of the Co-operative Society; and whether the use of public funds to adver-

tise a product of any particular concern is in accordance with Government policy.

Sir S. Cripps: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which was given to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) on 21st September.

Colonel Hutchison: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take steps to give an equivalent and compensating advertisement to competing concerns as he has given to the Co-operative Society?

Sir S. Cripps: I think if the hon. and gallant Member will read the answer to which I have referred, he will see that his supplementary question does not arise.

Post-war Credits

Mr. A. Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state to the last convenient date the approximate total amount of post-war Income Tax credits due to taxpayers; what total amounts would be paid; and the number entitled to payment if the Treasury agreed to repayment on the following basis; persons entitled to post-war credits from
£1—£50;£50—£100; and those over £100.

Sir S. Cripps: The total amount of Income Tax post-war credit now outstanding is £675 million. I am afraid that the information asked for in the second part of the Question is not available.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Is the Chancellor giving this somewhat intricate and difficult problem consideration with a view to some amelioration in his next Budget?

Sir S. Cripps: I am not aware of any intricate problem here, nor am I going to say anything about the next Budget.

Trade Union Funds (Overseas Gift)

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now in a position to say what permission is required for the transmission of funds by a British trade union to persons overseas; whether he is aware that the Executive of the Scottish branch of the National Union of Mineworkers has announced its intention to send £1,000 to French miners on strike; and whether any permission to do so has yet been granted.

Sir S. Cripps: The permission of the Treasury is required under Section 6 of the Exchange Control Act for the making of gifts to non-residents. Permission is granted in appropriate cases for the transmission of moneys collected for charitable purposes. The present application is described as being for the purpose of purchasing food and clothing for the miners and their dependents, and, on the understanding that the gift is for bona fide charitable purposes, I have decided to allow it. On balance of payments grounds there is no serious objection to the transfer.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that it has been widely stated that the purpose of this gift is in order to enable the strike to be continued in France?

Sir S. Cripps: I am not aware that what is widely stated is always accurate.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman borne in mind the speech which he himself made to this House only last week and is he not assisting the furtherance of that cold war to which he referred?

Sir S. Cripps: I have borne that in mind and I have also borne in mind the question of how far the existing regulations may be used for purposes of this kind.

Mr. Platts-Mills: May I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman of the speech he made in 1926 and the great approval which that speech still commands on this side of the House?

Purchase Tax

Mr. Hurd: asked the Economic Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the issue of maps depicting the war achievements of the English counties has been interrupted and the production of the Berkshire map suspended by the imposition of Purchase Tax at the rate of 100 per cent.; and if he will take immediate steps to free these productions from Purchase Tax.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): I presume that the hon. Member is referring to the pictorial maps published by "The Countryman." I have carefully considered this case but regret that I cannot see my way to single out these articles for

immediate relief from Purchase Tax. The publishers have been told, however, that the matter will be considered when the whole field of Purchase Tax comes up for review in connection with next year's Budget.

Mr. Hurd: As they have hitherto been produced for the benefit of charitable funds and the Women's Land Army, and it is merely a matter of interpretation of regulations and not of fiscal policy, cannot the Minister give the necessary instructions to put it right now?

Mr. Jay: We shall bear these arguments in mind when reviewing these facts before the Budget of next year.

Inland Revenue Forms

Commander Noble: asked the Economic Secretary to the Treasury on what basis are Inland Revenue Forms. P. 45 and P. 46, issued to employers.

Mr. Jay: Tax offices are instructed to send employers their reasonable requirements of these forms.

Commander Noble: Would it not be better if employers were allowed to demand these forms when they wanted them, because a firm in my constituency has just been issued with a supply which they estimate will last them for 100 years?

Mr. Jay: I am sure that if any firm notifies the tax office that they are getting more than their reasonable requirements then the office will take that into account.

Service Men's Baggage (Concessions)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Economic Secretary to the Treasury why approximately 350 R.A.F. Service men, who arrived at Liverpool on 4th April on the m.v. "Devonshire" from Japan, did not receive normal concessions for their accompanied baggage whilst 30 other R.A.F. Service men in the same ship did receive such concessions.

Mr. Jay: All the Service men in question received normal concessions on their accompanied baggage. The Financial Secretary has already written to my hon. Friend to explain why those concessions could not be given on the unaccompanied baggage.

Mr. Wyatt: Does not my hon. Friend think that it is most unfair that a Government order should have been given that men could not bring their accompanied baggage? They were not allowed to bring it and, therefore, they forwent the concessions obtained by the others.

Mr. Jay: The concessions are given on accompanied baggage. It is unfortunately impracticable to give them on unaccompanied baggage for the reasons explained in the letter to my hon. Friend.

Overseas Investments (Returns)

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Economic Secretary to the Treasury the amount received from overseas in interest, profit and dividends, after deducting amounts paid out in the year 1947; and the nett figure for 1948 based upon the first six months' trading.

Mr. Jay: I would refer the hon. Member to the White Paper on the Balance of Payments, Cmd. 7520.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Clothing Exports (Germany)

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that, 12 days after officials of his Department had informed representatives of the clothing industry that British clothes were to be allowed into Germany during the last quarter of this year, a delegation proposing to visit Germany to forward this trade and representing the principal British clothing trade associations was advised, also by his Department, to cancel the trip on the ground that no bilateral trading agreement exists between Britain and the Joint Export-Import Agency operating in the Bizone so that no trade could be done; and what steps are being taken to remedy this state of affairs.

Mr. Bottomley (Secretary for Overseas Trade): Yes, Sir. A statement by the Joint Export-Import Agency that they had approved certain imports of clothing, wool piece-goods and shoes from this country was subsequently revised, and we were obliged accordingly to cancel arrangements for representatives of the industries concerned to visit Germany.

The question has been taken up with the Agency and I hope that it will become possible to allow this trade to proceed.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Does that answer mean that Britain has not a trading agreement with the Joint Bizone Trading Authority of the two zones in Germany, and if we have not a trading agreement with them how in the world can anybody have such an agreement? Does this not, in fact, mean that America has banned our trade in clothes with the Western zone of Germany?

Mr. Bottomley: No, Sir. In the case of the Joint Import-Export Agency, this is an autonomous body and neither the Government in this country, nor the Governments in Paris and Washington, have any say in the matter.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Will my hon. Friend not answer the question I put last? Does this not mean, in fact, that the American Occupation authorities are forbidding our business people to sell their goods in the zone which we control? Why will he not alter that at once, without any nonsense?

Mr. Bottomley: No, Sir; this is an allied body responsible to the military commanders and to no one else.

Lanarkshire County Council (Grant)

Colonel Hutchison: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the amount of the grant to be paid to the Lanarkshire County Council for the removal of the bing at Bellshill by hand.

Mr. Bottomley: The Lanarkshire County Council have been promised a grant up to a maximum of £53,000 1s. 8d.

Colonel Hutchison: Were there not two tenders submitted for the removal of this bing, one of £17,000 and the other of £53,000, and would not the lower tender have been accepted if a grant of 100 per cent. had not been made available? Is not this uneconomic method costing the taxpayer money? If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to camouflage unemployment in this way, would it not be better——

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. and gallant Member asking for information or producing an argument?

Colonel Hutchison: Will the hon. Gentleman then answer that part of my question?

Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir. It is true there were two quotations and on balance it was thought that it was better to use the labour available rather than employ mechanical aid. For that purpose the higher tender was accepted.

MR. C. S Taylor: On a point of Order. Can we know what a bing is?

Colonel Hutchison: In view of the quite unsatisfactory nature of the replay I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Film Industry Inquiry)

Mr. H. D. Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he will be in a position to announce the establishment and membership of the Commission of Inquiry into the distribution and exhibition of films.

Mr. Bottomley: My right hon. Friend is now engaged in constituting the Committee, and he expects to be able to announce the names of the members and the terms of reference in the very near future.

Pedigree Livestock (Soviet Purchases)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Trade what recent purchases of pedigree livestock have been made here by the Soviet Government.

Mr. Bottomley: In the period June to September, 1948, licences were issued for the export to the U.S.S.R. of 1,580 sheep, 406 cattle and 427 pigs, to a total value of £110,617.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the Minister realise that British farmers are very enthusiastic about this trade with Russia and will he do everything possible to increase it?

Lace Sales (Investigations)

Mr. S. Shephard: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he proposes to take action against persons or firms who are selling in the home market lace which should be exported.

Mr. Bottomley: Several cases are in the hands of the Director of Public

Prosecutions and further investigations are being made, but the majority of firms are loyally fulfilling their export obligations.

Mr. Shephard: Is the hon. Member aware that I was given that answer some months ago? Is it not time that these black market racketeers in lace were brought to book?

Mr. Bottomley: I said the matter was in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Clothing Coupons (Expectant Mothers)

Mr. Granville Sharp: asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the circumstances and procedure under which expectant mothers who drew 70 clothing coupons on this account before 9th August, may draw an additional 10 coupons so as to give them the same treatment as others with the same degree of expectancy, who have obtained 80 clothing coupons.

Mr. Bottomley: The increase in the expectant mothers' supplement was only in respect of applications received on or after 9th August, 1948. I regret that the amount of work which would have been involved in reviewing retrospective claims compelled us to make this limitation.

New Factories, Co. Durham

Mr. Murray: asked the President of the Board of Trade when the two factories at Crook, Co. Durham, will be ready for occupation; if he is aware that the garments produced by Ramar's Dresses Ltd. are of a high quality and for export which could be greatly increased if this firm were able to operate in one of the new factories; and if he will expedite the opening of this factory and thus help our export trade.

Mr. Bottomley: Both factories are almost complete. One tenant is already in partial occupation and Ramar Dresses Limited should be able to start moving in next month.

Mr. Murray: While thanking the hon. Member for that reply, may I ask him if he will make sure that these factories really do get a chance to open? There are people in the Crook area who still like to do a spot of work and these new


factories will be able to make that possible. Will the hon. Member do everything he can to get them opened as soon as possible? Is he aware that building was started in 1946—that it has been going on for two years now?

Waste Paper (Salvage)

Mr. J. Morrison: asked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of waste paper is estimated to be available as salvage; what is the value of the lost proportion in dollars; and what steps are being taken to encourage the saving and collection of waste paper.

Mr. Bottomley: It is estimated that about one-third of paper available in the United Kingdom is recovered as salvage. It is not possible to say precisely what further proportion could be salvaged as considerable quantities, such as export packing, are irrecoverable, but I am satisfied that it must be substantial. I cannot within the limits of a reply to a Question indicate all the steps that are being taken to encourage collections, but a continuous campaign to this end is carried on by the Directorate of Salvage and Recovery and by the Waste Paper Recovery Association —a voluntary organisation. I should like to take this opportunity of repeating the appeal which my right hon. Friend has made on previous occasions to the public generally to assist.

Overseas Visitors (Shopping Facilities)

Mr. Odey: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the inadequacy of the present arrangements for the sale of goods to tourists free of Purchase Tax, he will take steps to encourage the retail trade to promote the sale of British goods to visitors from abroad.

Mr. Bottomley: I am most anxious that shopping arrangements for overseas visitors should be as simple as possible, and on 23rd March, in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Kennington (Mr. Gibson), my right hon. Friend announced the introduction for an experimental period of a new scheme, the

Tourist Voucher Scheme, and the extension of the Personal Export Scheme. These schemes appear to have worked reasonably well this season, but their operation is now under review, and we hope to improve them still further next year. Among the points to which special attention will be paid are the Purchase Tax arrangements, publicity for the schemes among overseas visitors and the part played by traders in working the schemes.

Mr. Odey: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask if there is any point at all in spending money on encouraging tourists here if we take no really practical steps to encourage the sale of goods overseas while tourists are here?

Mr. Bottomley: I thought I indicated that we had taken steps.

Engineering Industries (Price Control)

Sir W. Wakefield: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is proposing to take in connection with the memorandum sent to him by the Engineering Industries Association on Price Control.

Mr. Bottomley: My right hon. Friend has studied this Memorandum and is unable to accept the suggestion that the Miscellaneous Goods (Maximum Prices) Order, 1948, should be withdrawn. The Order was introduced early this year as part of the price stabilisation policy, and the need for that is as great as ever.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): It may be convenient for me to inform the House in advance of the usual Business statement, which will be made on Thursday, that it is the Government's intention to move the Second Reading of the Iron and Steel Bill on Monday of next week.
The Debate will be continued on Tuesday, 16th November, and brought to a conclusion on Wednesday, 17th November, when we shall also take the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution for the Bill.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be referred to the Scottish Standing Committee."—[Mr. Woodburn.]

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: This Motion, of course, is put without Debate, but I think it worth while mentioning that it is the first time that this procedure has been adopted, and I think it is desirable that the House should take note of that. We on our side do not propose to raise any objection to this procedure.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — WATER (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.33 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): I beg to move, "That the Bill he now read a Second time."
There is an illusion in other countries that Scotland is only interested in water in spirit and not in its natural form; but the people of Scotland are faced with the same fundamental problem as all human beings—they must either live beside fresh water or bring it to where they live. The first choice is not open to Scotland, as it is to countries where streams and rivers meander through the countryside or water drains slowly through the soil. The steep sides of Ben Lomond have this disadvantage, that the water falls on its sides in the morning and by night has reached sea level. Scotland has no reason to complain of not having enough water falling upon it. Scotland's problem is to catch and hold the water after it has fallen. This involves large civil engineering projects similar to those engaged in for the great hydro-electric schemes that are being built there at the moment, with the additional necessity of piping the water from those far distant spots and gathering grounds to the centres of population.
If we were starting afresh, clearly the wise policy would be to arrange our distribution areas along the whole line of flow from the reservoirs down to the sea. Our plans, however, are qualified by the long existing water schemes which

have already established reservoirs and pipe lines which are owned by existing water authorities. With a view to seeing this problem as a whole, Scotland was surveyed between 1943 and 1946. The results were conveyed to the local authorities in order that they might submit their schemes to us for dealing in a comprehensive way with the collection of water and its rational distribution throughout the whole area.
The modern demand is for water to be available inside the house itself. A great step forward was taken in the Water (Scotland) Act, 1946, when Parliament decreed that every new house must have an inside water supply. Many of the existing rural houses in Scotland, however, are still without the boon of a piped water supply, and this Bill, we hope, will go some way to meet this defect. In the second place, however, the demand for water is progressive. When the law of water in landward areas was governed by the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867, the chairman of the Local Government Board for Scotland, then the central authority for public health, advised the parochial boards, then the local authorities, that the supply to be provided for domestic purposes should be not less than 10 gallons per head. When the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, came into force, the advice of the Board was that while 10 gallons were required for domestic use,
where there are water closets, 15 gallons per head will be necessary,
and they thought that from 25 to 30 gallons should be allowed. Today, statistics show that with modern houses 30 to 35 gallons are being consumed per head per day, and engineers now calculate for making provision on the basis of 50 gallons per head.
Scotland has a desperate need for water. In some areas, including my own county, we are reaching the point where new houses cannot be built unless assured of water supplies, and there is the risk of their not having enough water supply at the moment. The rehousing of the people for the purposes of agriculture and great new industrial and mining developments in Scotland would be gravely hampered were the water supply not to advance side by side with these great new housing areas. Scotland has also stepped up its milk production in recent years, but even now


milk is barred from sale for human consumption in some areas because the dairy farms are unable to satisfy the health authorities of the purity of their water supplies.
I have already mentioned that an engineering survey was made between 1943 and 1946 by the Department of Health for Scotland. Authorities were allowed until 31st March, 1946, in which to submit applications for grant, and it was found possible to give to the authorities outlines of the comprehensive proposals suggested by the survey, so that the grant applications could be framed accordingly. The claims came in, and showed that the Scottish need for grant had been under-estimated when the grant under the 1944 Act was fixed; and it is now calculated, after a detailed examination of the position throughout the country, that £20 million represents the grant which will be needed to provide a proper water supply system. With the sparse population in many parts of rural Scotland the cost must necessarily be higher per dwelling served than in the more densely populated parts of the country.
Priority will continue to be given to schemes where rural housing would otherwise be held up. However, a warning must be given against any impression that the increase in the amount of grant will be reflected in an acceleration in the existing programme of works. Progress depends today more upon availability of men and materials than upon money. All county councils have already had some part of their comprehensive water proposals provisionally accepted for grant, and these first phases will be allowed to proceed as quickly as the present shortage of labour and materials will allow. The £20 million relates to the schemes as a whole, and for some years the rate of progress must be limited by the resources available for capital investment. It should be realised, therefore, that the full programme may take 15 to 20 years to carry out. What the increase does is to enable Scottish local authorities to plan their future water developments in the knowledge that a grant based on their comprehensive programme has been approved.
The Bill, therefore, has three main purposes: First, it authorises an increase in a

total grant made available in the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1944, from £6⅜ million to £20 million. Secondly, to distribute this grant fairly it involves a revision of the methods of rating, and the Bill provides a uniform system of rating and charging for water in Scotland. Thirdly, it makes certain desirable amendments in the laws on water as contained in the 1946 Water (Scotland) Act and other statutes. Some of the provisions of the Bill are necessarily complicated, but the general proposals to which the Bill now gives effect have been discussed in the usual way with the local authorities, and agreement on the principles of the Bill has been reached. It is to be hoped, therefore, that the Bill will be noncontroversial.
In 1944, Parliament authorised grants for rural water supplies, and in the same year the first results of the engineering survey of Scottish water supplies, instituted by the then Secretary of State in 1943, became available. The system of rating for water so far as contained in public general legislation dates from the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867. It was based on the assumption that in counties public supplies of water would be provided only in the populous places, and the law was that populous places, under the title of a "special water supply district," paid its own rate for its own water supply. If a proposed scheme was going to be too dear, it was just not proceeded with. The survey showed that there were large tracts of rural Scotland inadequately served, and that the best way to meet their needs was by comprehensive regional schemes which it would be difficult to finance under the special district procedure.
Moreover, outside public general legislation there were various systems of rating throughout the local Acts, and the question was how, with such various systems, could the grants made available by the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act be fairly assessed as between one authority and another?
In these circumstances, the then Secretary of State appointed in July, 1944, a strong committee under the chairmanship of Sir Robert Bryce Walker, ex-county clerk of Lanarkshire, to examine the whole question of rating and charging for water. The committee made a careful study of the problem and their report was


published at the beginning of 1946. In general, Part I of the Bill follows closely the recommendations of the committee. The committee had no difficulty in reaching the view that if the full use of water for domestic purposes was to be encouraged in the interests of health and cleanliness, the proper method of paying for it was by means of a rate in the £ on the rent of the house.
I cannot claim, of course, that this view is held by all. We came across a case some years ago, when it was proposed to instal a proper supply of water in a village then served merely by wells, so that piped water supplies could be introduced into the houses. The suggested water rate of 3s. in the £ for this piped water supply was objected to by an old lady in the village. She was asked how much it cost her to get water in her own way, and she protested, "The waiter costs me naethin'—naethin' but saxpence a week tae a bit laddie for cairryin' twa pails a day frae the wal." It was pointed out to her that, as the tenant of a house rented at £4 a year, she would in future be paying only 6s. for water piped into her house a year instead of the 26s. paid to the "laddie" to carry it, and she readily agreed with the advantage, even at a seemingly large increase to the rates.
One of the defects of distributing fairly a water grant is that in Scotland we have seven different systems of rating for water. By this Bill we propose one uniform system. In future, the rate will be divided in two distinct categories—one, a public water rate; two, a domestic water rate.
The public water rate will be charged to meet the cost of the proportion of the water which is used for general purposes—public cleansing, fire and other general health uses—and will be calculated according to each water authority's discretion at from 20 to 33⅓ per cent. of the water expenditure to be met from rates. The Bryce Walker Committee recommended 25 per cent., but we have altered that to provide a degree of flexibility to suit some of the local authorities, and it runs from 20 to 33⅓ per cent. The rate will be levied as part of the general county or burgh rate, and it will be equally divided between owners and occupiers, whether they are supplied with water from the public system or not. The

domestic water rate will be regarded henceforward as a commodity charge like the charge for gas or electricity and will be levied as a rate on occupiers of premises supplied with water as the most convenient way of charging for this commodity.
Where in local water Acts there is at present a domestic water rate, it is often divided equally between owner and occupier and the single rate of public general legislation divided in this way. By putting the liability for the domestic water rate solely on occupiers, the Bill will, in such cases, relieve the owner of part of his liability for rates. The Committee recommended, however, that, for a time, the occupier should be entitled to recover from rent, the amount of the owner's rate relief where it amounted to 10s. or more. The idea was essentially to have some regard for the terms of bargains current at the time the Act comes into force.
Circumstances vary very widely, however. Many tenants protected by the Rent Restrictions Acts would enjoy the right of recovery indefinitely. Many other tenants of local authority houses, which are not under the Rent Restrictions Acts, and mostly on monthly or quarterly tenancies, would never acquire any right or recovery whatsoever, and to complicate the matter still further, there are cases of small landholders whose conditions of tenure have quite peculiar characteristics of their own.
To do rough justice over the whole field, it is proposed to give the right of recovery in all cases for a period of five years, unless there is within that period a change of tenancy. The provision for recovery does not however operate where the owner's relief is less than 10s. a year. Five years seems a reasonable and convenient period to carry over the transition from the present to the new rating liability and it happens also to be the interval at which rents of agricultural holdings may be reviewed under the recent Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948.
The original arrangement for the provision of water in a landward area was for part of the county to be carved out and for a special rate for water to be fixed. In the 1929 Local Government (Scotland) Act, provision was made to enable the county council to assist a special district from county funds. In


1934, the committee on the Scottish health services expressed the view that the system had outlived its usefulness. Emphasis is lent to that view by the proposals for comprehensive water schemes in county areas, and following the Bryce Walker Committee, the Bill provides in Clause 9 for the abolition of special water supply districts. To avoid abrupt changes in water rates, however, county councils are given a period of ten years in which the individual special water rate may be levelled up or down to the uniform domestic water rate of the rest of the county.
Water supply for the farm also raises rather special problems in Scotland. Our farms are usually larger, and our farm workers are usually housed on the farm. Bringing water to the farm or its workers involves a more expensive and complicated piping problem than in the general rural village. In Scotland the farmhouse, the farm cottages, the steading and the fields are given one valuation in the valuation roll. In local legislation for water, with its domestic rate, there is generally a separate valuation of the dwellings, which then pay the full domestic water rate. For the purposes of public general legislation, however, the expedient of derating has been adopted, and the fraction of one-eighth, on which water rates are paid, may operate unfairly in individual cases. The Bill, therefore, follows the Bryce Walker Committee Report in requiring a separate valuation of the farm dwellings on which the full domestic water rate will be payable.
In Scotland the county councils and the town councils are the rating authorities, but they are not all water authorities. Rutherglen Burgh, for example, is supplied by and pays for water to the City of Glasgow as if it were part of the City. Under Clause 11 a joint water board or an authority supplying water outside its local government boundaries will stop levying rates on the premises supplied where that has been the practice, and instead will requisition from the authority in which the water is being supplied.
One of the main purposes of the 1946 Act was, generally speaking, to enable the Secretary of State to confer on local

authorities by order powers which they would otherwise have had to seek by provisional order subject to Parliamentary confirmation. All the indications are that the new system is operating satisfactorily. Some 12 orders have been made, dealing with such matters as adjustments of compensation water, acquisition of water rights, augmentation of supply, extension of limits of supply, authorisation of borrowing, and so on; and 11 draft orders are at present under consideration in the Department of Health. Part III of the Bill makes a number of amendments to the 1946 Act which are intended to simplify its administration and remove difficulties which have arisen.
In Scotland we have discovered it has been quite a common thing in the past for local water authorities, when negotiating for the right to take water to supply people resident in their areas, to enter into arrangements to supply water free or on special terms to estates from which the water was to be taken. The arrangements varied widely in their nature and scope, but it was common to most of them that the local authority undertook to supply the whole estate with water free of charge or on preferential terms in all time coming.
It is difficult now to pass judgment on these arrangements which appeared reasonable at the time they were made; but in many cases the original commitments of the water authority have since increased very greatly. For one thing the consumption of water has increased over the whole population so appreciably with the increasing appreciation of its hygienic importance. In addition, of course, on some of these estates factories have been built which consume water, and that water is supplied free from the authority. The demand for water by an estate has also, in many cases, grown appreciably because of the number of houses and other buildings requiring water on the estate, and also for such reasons as the development of dairy farming. Moreover, arrangements made years ago for water to be supplied on special monetary terms have ceased to have any relation to the much depreciated value of the currency of today. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Well, we have had the disadvantage of two wars,


for which I shall not allocate responsibility. I am afraid that one of the processes of history has been that the value of money has depreciated steadily rather than appreciated.
One or two instances will give a picture of the sort of arrangements that are in force in regard to this free water. Most of them are secured by special provisions in local Acts promoted by the local authorities themselves. In one case a local authority is bound to supply free of charge daily about 500,000 gallons of water to five estates, including a large mill. The local authority is also under obligation to meet the cost of maintaining the branch or service pipes from the main to the estates. Now, local authorities feel, quite naturally, that such obligations have become unreasonably onerous. While they continue, those benefiting under them will be freed from the obligation to pay the domestic water rate under this Bill, and consequently the local authorities will be involved in appreciable loss of revenue.
The Bill accordingly gives them means to bring such obligations to an end. If they cannot do this by agreement the Secretary of State may do so by order. In either case, the Bill provides for compensation, in assessing which regard will be had to the value of the rights at the time they are ended. Provision is also made whereby in future such obligations will be limited to the quantity of water supplied in the year preceding 27th October, 1948, and to premises supplied on that date. Meantime, of course, the Bill provides that until such obligations are brought to an end those benefiting under them will not be liable to the domestic water rate.
It may appear that this Bill lacks the romance of the great comprehensive schemes we have passed in the House, such as the National Health Service or the new insurance schemes; but life itself, health and happiness depend on a supply of good water, which is more vital even than food or homes. Our forebears cannot be reproached because they did not wholly foresee the great development of our communities and their needs. What is so amazing is that in so many cases they provided so well that since the war hundreds and thousands of houses have been provided with water supply ready to lay

on. For this we owe a deep debt of gratitude to the foresight and enterprise of those water enthusiasts of the past. We have now reached the time, however, when another new great step forward must be taken in Scotland. This Bill makes it possible for the best and most economical use to be made of our natural resources. It permits of its fair distribution on equitable terms, and I have great pleasure in commending its acceptance to the House.

3.58 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: I think that every one of us will have appreciated the historical and statical review which the right hon. Gentleman has given us this afternoon, and also the detailed explanation which he has given of the terms of the Bill. I am sure we should all like to join with him in the tribute which he paid to those water enthusiasts who have provided so liberally for us in the past, and whose work has been of such benefit to the whole people of our country.
As the right hon. Gentleman has stated—and as, indeed, is stated in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum—the principal object of this Bill is to provide a uniform system of rating and charging for water; and, so far as that system is just and removes anomalies which exist at the present time,. I believe it is to be welcomed. The Bill really provides the machinery under which the local authority can reimburse itself for the expenditure which it has been called upon to make in supplying water. It is a machinery Bill, pure and simple; there is no great political issue at stake, and I do not think that many party prejudices can be raised by this Measure. In view of these facts, and because it appears to us that this is both a logical and a workmanlike Measure, we on this side of the House do not propose to oppose its Second Reading. Any detailed criticisms we have to make we shall keep until the Committee Stage, when we hope to put down Amendments to improve the Measure generally.
The Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, is divided into four Parts. Part I deals solely with the recommendations of the Bryce Walker Committee, and in general adopts those recommendations. Part II is short, concise and very much to the point, and in general is satisfactory. The financial


provisions it makes are much more in keeping with costs as they are today than the amounts laid down in the 1944 Act, at which time people were not able to for see the phenomenal increases which have since taken place. We welcome this Part of the Bill as being a more realistic approach to the problem of financing the development of our rural water supplies. Part HI of the Bill amends the 1946 Act. I am sorry to differ from the right hon. Gentleman at this point. He informed us that this Act was working well, but according to the information I have received the local authorities are finding it somewhat unsatisfactory. They complain that the procedure is very protracted and that the orders the right hon. Gentleman issues under the terms of that Act are couched in language which is incomprehensible to the average layman, which is something that happens in connection with almost all the orders issued under Acts of Parliament; I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will endeavour to ease that situation as time goes on.
Part IV, apart from Clause 34, which will, I suppose, since the passing of the Local Government Act, 1948, be common to all Bills conferring powers under which a charge on rates may be increased, deals with interpretation and repeals. I would draw the attention of the Lord Advocate to the fact that English terminology seems to have crept into this Bill. I am given to understand that words appear in the Bill which have no meaning and are nowhere defined in Scottish valuation statutes. I am referring to the use of the word "premises" in Clauses 2, 3 and 4 and the word "hereditaments" in Clause 16. If my information is correct, I think it is a great pity that these foreign words should have found their way into a Scottish Bill, and I trust that they will be removed before very long.
I now wish to return to Part I of the Bill and to mention certain matters to which the right hon. Gentleman did not refer in his speech. As I understand the position, it is that as from 16th May, 1949, expenditure on water, which is not otherwise met, is to an extent, varying between one-third and one-fifth, to be met by a public water rate leveled equally on the owner and occupier and

assessed on all rateable subjects, and the remainder of the expenditure is to be borne by the domestic water rate. If that is correct, then we are in general agreement. I think the House will agree that the proportion of expenditure application able to the public services mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman should be a public rate.
The right hon. Gentleman partly explained how it came about that he has departed from the recommendations of the Bryce Walker Committee in regard to the proportion to be borne by the public water rate. He told us that the proportion laid down by the Bryce Walker Committee was 25 per cent. There was to be a minimum charge per £1 of 2d. and a maximum charge of 6d., whereas the Bill omits that minimum and maximum and the charge is to be as between one-fifth and one-third. I should like to know in fuller detail the reasons which lead the right hon. Gentleman to depart from the proposals of the Bryce Walker Committee. The public water rate is a charge on all rateable subjects. The right hon. Gentleman confirmed that, but here there may be a difference of opinion. That difference of opinion was recognised in the Report of the Bryce Walker Committee.
The kind of question which comes to my mind is whether it is just that the same rate should be applicable to all subjects. All subjects do not receive equal services. For example, can it be contended that those whose houses are in high altitudes or in remote areas can receive the same services as other subjects? Can it be contended that these people, who can never hope to receive a public water supply and do not receive the other benefits, should be charged at the full rate? The right hon. Gentleman told us that there were three ingredients in the public rate—fire, street cleansing and; sewage. There is a fourth, and that is the health aspect of the matter. If only one of these services is being received then surely the full rate should not be charged. The House may remember it was argued by the Bryce Walker Committee that people in remote places did receive the benefits of what they call "The health insurance aspect." When I think of some of the places which might come in under that, I consider that argument to be very thin indeed. I think


that the Committee were more influenced by administrative convenience than by justice. In my opinion, it is fantastic to charge the full rate on subjects who have not and are not likely ever to have a supply of public water.

Mr. Woodburn: I do not pretend to have exhausted all the public services in my speech. The question of justice is always a difficult one. I remember the argument used to be whether a blind man should pay rates for street lighting. It is impossible to get absolute justice in these matters. As I said, I did not exhaust all the public services. For instance, I could have dilated on fountains.

Commander Galbraith: I agree that there are many public services the right hon. Gentleman could have mentioned. Nevertheless, I do not think full justice is being done, and I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will deal with the matter a little more fully.
I now turn to the domestic water rate, which is payable by occupiers on the gross annual value of their lands and heritages, but only if they are provided with a supply of water by the local authority. Technically, I understand that such a supply is given if the pipe main happens to pass within such distance as makes it suitable to be connected at a reasonable cost—I think the Lord Advocate will find I am quoting almost the exact words. The reference is Section 8 (2) of the 1948 Act. If that is so, then a very important question immediately arises. There are parts of the country where very great sums of money have been expended by private persons in providing a water supply to their houses and other buildings.
In that connection, the Bryce Walker Committee suggested that these premises should be exempt from the domestic water rate, subject only to the supply being satisfactory so far as health is concerned. So far as I can discover there is no Clause in the Bill which deals with the recommendations of the Bryce Walker Committee. In view of the vast schemes which are contemplated it seems to me that at any time a main may be laid and placed in such a position that it can be connected to premises at a reasonable cost. I want to know whether, in these circumstances, the

occupier will be charged the domestic water rate although he already has his own private supply?
I have said that the public water rate should only be paid when a supply of water is being provided. That is the position I also take up in relation to the domestic water rate, and I believe that to be right according to my reading of Clause 2 (2). If that is so I should like to know how that applies to Clause 6, when we come to deal with shootings and fishings? Hon. Members know that all shootings and fishings, whether or not they have lodges or huts on them, appear in the valuation roll, and I want to know if they are to be charged the domestic water rate whether or not they receive a supply of water? One can envisage a main being laid across the top of an open moor, and it being held that a supply of water was being provided. I want to know whether it is intended to assess shooting and fishings for payment at that rate?
Both in the Bryce Walker Report and in the Bill itself there is raised once more the whole question of the Scottish rating system. I know I cannot discuss that matter now, but I would, in passing, express the hope that the Minister, fortified by all the numerous reports he has at his disposal, is keeping this matter under constant and active consideration. As I said at the opening of my remarks, in general we accept the principle of this Bill. We intend to confine our criticisms to the Committee stage, but it is our purpose today to help to give the Bill a Second Reading.

4.14 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: This is the first time I have had the honour of addressing this House, and I should like to ask right hon. and hon. Members to extend to me the toleration and leniency of judgment which is customary on such occasions. I want to make only two points in connection with this Bill. First, it seems to me to end a considerable number of practices and situations that are by now antiquated. The local Acts, under which a very considerable proportion of Scotland's population receive their water supply, are not brought to an end by this Bill but a number of their provisions are replaced, for instance. The special water supply districts are dissolved, the power of joint


water boards to rate for water ends, and, as my right hon. Friend explained, what is known as "free" water is brought to a standstill. It cannot be extended.
These provisions and situations had their uses in their own day, but in most cases it is now desirable that we should abolish them. The power of joint water boards to rate for water seems an unnecessary complication of the Scottish water rating system. Generally speaking, the ending of a number of these antiquated practices seems to have simplified very considerably the whole field of rating and administration. I do not know that streamlining is always necessarily a good thing, but surely the simplification of administration and of water rating in Scotland is itself a good thing.
I believe, however, that the benefit which comes from the ending of some of these ancient practices is only a symptom of something rather more important. This seems to be the fundamental importance of the Bill. These practices grew up, in the main, because they had local value. For instance, joint water supply districts were established in regions in which it was possible at a fairly reasonable cost to provide a piped water supply, but did not extend to districts in which such supply could only be produced at a very, high cost. Local Acts, by their very nature, have a local application, and I believe that the departure of these old practices and ideas shows that we are now for the first time beginning to see the wood and not the trees. The Bill shows that the Government are viewing the problem of Scottish water rating as a whole, and are not simply concerned with particular localities. That is an important feature of this Measure.
My second point concerns future development. Now we have reached the stage where we can survey the whole field of Scottish water development and rating at once, advantage can be taken of that to go ahead with better supplies of water for our communities. In this the Government take only a part, but a major part, in clearing away obstructions and in encouraging and financing such supplies. They leave actual development, as is desirable and customary, to the local authorities, but their part is a very important part, as my right hon. Friend

made clear when he mentioned the money to be used for grants in aid. In addition, there are one or two other provisions in the Bill under which the Government help with the further capital necessary for the development of water supplies. If it is felt that the occupier rates are not sufficient for capital development, assistance can be obtained from other sources towards the necessary expenditure.
It is extremely desirable that the development of water supply schemes should be left to the local authorities, and it is worth while noticing that this service is being left in their hands at a time when so much criticism is heard about their functions being reduced. In my own constituency there was a recent example of the basic importance of water supply in connection with industrial development. The local authorities there wisely came to a decision which will enable projected developments to take place without any hindrance through lack of water.
The development by local authorities, however, is a matter which involves a certain amount of fairly careful judgment, because the local authority boundaries do not always coincide, as we know, with the natural boundaries of the catchment areas. While it is desirable, therefore, for each local authority to develop water supplies within its own boundaries and for its own citizens as well as possible, we also in this Bill rest a good deal of our future development on the wise judgment of the local authorities in the combinations that they make over particular areas, because such combinations will continue, of course, to be necessary as they have been in the past. We may take it that the local authorities, aided by the the present Bill, will be able to go ahead and plan Scotland's water supply on a rather more advanced, more modern and fuller basis than before. For those reasons the Bill ought to be welcomed.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. Snadden: I am sure the whole House will wish me to congratulate the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. MacPherson) on a most excellent maiden speech. I feel particularly privileged because my own constituency happens to border on the Stirling and Falkirk Burghs constituency,


and it falls to me to say how much we appreciated his speech. He has spoken with knowledge and has put his finger on one or two points which I am sure will arise in this Debate. We all look forward to hearing from him in our future Debates in this House.
Like my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith), I should like to start the short speech I hope to make by expressing my appreciation of the expansion of £13 million under the Rural Water Supplies Act. Originally, we were all agreed on what was more or less an estimate at that time, but the great increase in costs that have taken place since then has proved to be embarrassing and has shown us that the sum previously voted was quite inadequate. I only hope that the new total will be sufficient, and that we shall not find that ever increasing costs will again absorb a fresh amount of money we are to have under this Bill.
In Perthshire and Kinross, as in many other rural counties, we are only too well aware of the great necessity from the point of view of food production and helping the labour problem in the countryside, of a great expansion in our rural water supplies and also of providing proper sewerage schemes. We have still got communities in Western Perthshire which have neither a proper water supply nor proper public sanitation. We have also villages and burghs whose growth has been such that the whole system of sewerage now must be replaced by a more comprehensive scheme. All these are essential if we are going to retain our rural communities in the countryside. Therefore, I welcome the provision of the financial grants whereby that can be accomplished.
There is one point I should like to mention in connection with this part of the Bill. We are all pretty well aware of the shortages that exist in respect of materials. I assume that the Government, when going forward with this expansion of the funds available to meet the increased capital outlay that will be necessary to carry out the expansion schemes in the rural areas, are keeping in mind the question of availability of materials for the various jobs. I should like to be assured that the Government are remembering that, when through

water mains are laid along the main road, the people who are going to connect up with these mains have the necessary materials to do so.
Although I cannot say that it is within my own experience, I have heard that there is a great shortage of small diameter piping. The large main, the four-inch or six-inch pipe is one thing, but the people who want to connect up with it must have a smaller diameter pipe to lead into the house. They also want such things as basins, lavatories, and so on. I should like to ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State to give us an assurance that these materials will be available for the public so that they can benefit from these schemes.
Looking at the rest of the Bill I am not so warm in my appreciation. I speak as a representative of a rural constituency where conditions are extremely diverse. The whole of the county of Kinross and a large part of the county of Perthshire contains almost every possible form of rural life. We have large dairy farms supplying the urban areas, and we have also vast tracts of mountain land and villages in the glens remote from the public highways. County towns and small burghs are units by themselves enjoying all the amenities produced by local authority administration. It is quite otherwise when we turn to the purely rural areas where there is a great diversity of circumstances. It is because of this great diversity in circumstances and the differences of conditions that I find it difficult to welcome one particular feature of this Bill. Obviously the principal intention of the Bill is to introduce a uniform system of rating, as the Secretary of State has said, and the public provision of water supplies by means of a uniform system of rating. I know today the trend is towards standardisation. I quite often deplore that trend, though I hope I am always willing to consider it if it can be shown that it is essential to some higher purpose.
In this instance I am not myself convinced that there has been established any essential need. I am not assured that there is a sound and unanswerable case for uniformity. What is the particular virtue in standardisation of water charges by a county council? Do all the ratepayers in the county enjoy equal supplies of water? Wherein, for example, is it


an improvement to levy a charge by means of a public water rate on properties where either there is no water supply at all or where the supply, as my hon. and gallant Friend has said, has already been provided by a private proprietor at very great expense indeed?
The Report of the Bryce Walker Committee supports its recommendation of the system of the public water rate by stressing the public service aspect of water supply. The Committee illustrated various services such as fire-fighting, sewer flushing and so on, and it says that a supply of adequate water is necessary to guard against an outbreak of water borne diseases. This is all excellent, I admit, for those in a position to enjoy such facilities, but I find it difficult to imagine that a farmer in Glen Lyon away up in the glens, enjoys any benefit from street watering in Crieff. I find it equally difficult to imagine that his brother farmer in Glen Devon is thrilled at the idea of public lavatories in Kinross; still less can I imagine any enthusiasm for paying a public water rate on the part of a farmer who, eager to get good water, is nevertheless condemned to drink contaminated water from the Goodie Burn in Perthshire.

Mr. David Kirkwood: Did we never do that under the Tories?

Mr. Snadden: Mention has been made in the Committee's Report of the comparable costs of water and gas, electricity and coal, but whatever the effect of nationalisation, it has never been seriously suggested that there should be a public electricity rate or a public gas rate levied on persons who do not, in fact, enjoy such services. There appear to be two categories of persons who are to be made liable unjustifiably to pay the public water rate. The first and most obvious category includes the people in remote areas who never will get a public water supply.

Mr. Willis: Is the argument of the hon. Gentleman that because a person lives, away from other people, the fact that disease might affect the other people is a matter of no concern to him?

Mr. Snadden: It is really far-fetched if the hon. Member is going to bring in

the subject of disease and link it up with a hill sheep farm in a remote area which will never get a supply of water at all.
The second category in which the rate is to be levied unjustifiably—I am not taking a prejudiced view of this matter but am only trying to put a fair case—is that of the people living in areas that may ultimately benefit, but not for many years. I am told that the Loch Turret scheme in Perthshire will probably not yield results for 10 years, yet the people are to pay the public water rate. I do not think that is fair. Until a public water supply is available to them they should not be obliged to pay the public water rate.
Discussion of the details of the Bill will take place in Committee and I do not want to delay the House unduly now by referring to small points. Questions of principle are raised, however. The first is to be found in Clause 2 in which it would appear, from Subsection (5), that a whole class of occupiers is to be excluded from liability to pay the domestic water rate even though water will in fact be supplied to them. I have done my best for this class of person in the past and I am not finding fault now about their exclusion in any way, but this specific exclusion of small landholders is treatment as a specially favoured class. I appreciate the fact that the Bryce Walker Committee drew attention to the difficulties in this connection, but I cannot believe that they are insoluble. I am informed that these people are only too willing to pay for their water and that they would prefer to do so rather than to have a supply of electricity. They want the water first. To make one class pay the public rate when they are not to have any water at all and have no likelihood of getting any, and then to excuse a particular class from payment of the domestic rate for water which they are actually to receive, does not seem to me to be sensible. I shall be glad if the Joint Under-Secretary of State will let us know precisely why this inconsistency arises.
Under Clause 8 there is another matter of principle. It appears that in the event of the financial burden of providing a water supply being so great as to make the domestic water rate unduly heavy upon the occupiers liable to make the payment, the county council may defray


out of the rates the additional expenditure which would arise. The final words of the Clause are those to which I would direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman:
Where part of such cost is defrayed out of the rates it shall be defrayed out of county rate.
That is not very clear. I may be misinterpreting what those words mean and if so the Minister will no doubt correct me. It appears that the additional cost is to be borne, not on the public water rate but upon the general county rate. Otherwise the Clause would say so. If that is the case, I would like to know why.
The proportion of the cost to be paid out of the public water rate may be anything from one-fifth to one-third of the total. If a share of the cost which should be borne by the domestic water rate is to be transferred to the general county rate, then that will be concealing from the ratepayers the true cost of the water supply. That arrangement seems to me to be bad accounting and wrong in principle and, from the point of view of public administration, open to the same objection which I mentioned a moment ago in connection with the indiscriminate levying of the public water rate. I should be glad to have an answer to this point.
The last point which I wish to put to the Minister and which he might clear up concerns the provisions of Clause 23 which are reminiscent of our old friend the Scottish Agricultural Bill which we debated some time ago. The Clause gives power of entry for survey purposes. The concession is made that where such a survey, which includes the carrying out of work, such as boring, and which would be detrimental to the carrying on of the work of a statutory undertaking, it will not be carried out except with the authority of the appropriate Minister. It is evident that the authors of the Bill have conceded the general principle of protecting the legitimate rights of occupiers of land, but why should its application be restricted to a few nationalised industries or public authorities? Why should not the farmer, when work has to be carried out, be placed in the same position of objecting and saying: "That is not going to be done. I cannot allow you to damage my land and walk over my crops without the special permission of the Minister"? I

think there is an omission here. I am sure the Secretary of State will agree with me, when he realises that food production comes first among the priorities. The producer of food should be placed in the same position as nationalised industries.
Those are all the observations I wish to make. There are others I might have made, but my right hon. and gallant Friend has sufficiently aired them. I have criticised one or two points in the Bill, but I welcome it generally and I hope that the Minister will be able to remove some of the anomalies to which we have drawn attention.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. Willis: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) in regard to the details which he has-just expounded, but it seems to me that there is a certain principle which he discussed and which is rather important. It is a principle which would appear to separate hon. Members on the other side from ourselves. We view certain services as public services, necessary to the public welfare. The history of an adequate water service is that it has become increasingly necessary in the interests not only of the individual but of the community. The community benefits as the result of it. I suggest that even if a man does not happen to be drawing a direct water supply, he nevertheless benefits as a result of the fact that the community itself is benefiting. A healthy and well-doing community ultimately benefits the individual, even though he is not getting water from a tap from a supply laid on in his house.

Mr. Snadden: Would the hon. Member apply that argument in the case of electricity and gas, and charge an electricity rate to those who do not get a supply?

Mr. Willis: That is rather a different matter. There is a difference here. Plenty of people contribute to public services which are considered essential to the public interest, whether they receive that service or not.
Both sides of the House welcome this Bill, I imagine, because it marks a step along the road to the proper development of an adequate water supply for the country. It is another milestone in the history of our water supplies, an interesting history In fact, not only was I interested


in what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had to say, but I have also been interested in the more detailed history of the development of our water supplies. My right hon. Friend might suggest to some of the education committees that it would make a good study in citizenship in our schools.
Students would then learn how private enterprise operated this service 100 years ago, and how it deliberately robbed the citizens of Edinburgh. They might read the evidence which was given to a Committee of this House and another place when Edinburgh asked for permission to take over its water supply; when solid brass blocks with a one-eighth hole were put into the water supply pipes to prevent people from getting a water supply, and women living in the top flats of the tenements in Edinburgh had to stay awake all night to do their washing.

Mr. Kirkwood: Was this done by Scotsmen to Scotswomen?

Mr. Willis: Under private enterprise.

Mr. Kirkwood: What a race!

Commander Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman should read the history of Glasgow, which would give him a better view of it.

Mrs. Jean Mann: On the contrary, the hon. and gallant Member ought to read the history of the Duke of Montrose, Loch Katrine and the Glasgow water supply.

Mr. Willis: Certainly these interjections indicate that it is an interesting subject and an illuminating one. This Bill deals with three things. First, it applies certain principles to the rating charges for water throughout Scotland. Secondly, it provides for an increased expenditure of £14 million on the provision of water in rural areas. Thirdly, it amends the last Water Act with which we dealt.
The first part of the Bill seems to me to be desirable. I think the hon. Member for West Perth said that he could see no reason for standardising water rating throughout Scotland. One reason is that it is difficult to put into operation the provisions of the 1946 Act, whereby authorities can combine, without standardisation. There are other reasons, but

that is an important one. If we pass a Bill to do certain things, we have to see that it is made possible and simple to do them.
The Bill departs from some of the recommendations of the Bryce Walker Committee but, on the whole, it is rather more flexible than those recommendations, and for that reason I welcome it. However, there appear to be certain omissions. For instance, my attention has been drawn to the fact that theatres and cinemas are not mentioned at all and that, being assessed at a ratable value many times higher than domestic properties, under this Bill they will have to pay the full domestic rate. Factories, workshops, shops and other premises, however, pay varying amounts of the domestic rate—a half, a quarter or whatever it may be—but in the case of cinemas and theatres no provision is made. I do not know whether that is deliberate. If so, perhaps my hon. Friend could give us the arguments for omitting these and placing them on the same basis as domestic dwellings? If it is not deliberate, perhaps my hon. Friend will give an undertaking to go into this matter before the Committee stage?
I think everybody welcomes the second part of the Bill, which provides more ample facilities in rural districts. In the counties adjacent to Edinburgh—for instance, in East Lothian and Berwickshire—we still have old age pensioners in certain villages having to draw water from wells 200 or 300 years old—another legacy of the party opposite. These conditions exist in a county which contains the homes of more noble families than any other county in Scotland. They do no draw their water from wells 200 or 300 years old; most of them are provided with adequate private water supplies.
I was a little perturbed by the statement of the Secretary of State that these provisions will take some 15 or 20 years to bring into operation. We ought to try to reduce that target. His argument was that we could not build houses until we had adequate water supplies. If that is true, it means that we shall not get houses in the rural areas for a longer period than 15 to 20 years.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): indicated dissent.

Mr. Willis: Yes, that is what it means. The logic of the argument is that we shall not get houses until after that.

Mr. Fraser: indicated dissent.

Mr. Willis: Well, we shall not finish our programme. This problem has to be tackled in a far more urgent manner than that. Appreciating the difficulties at the present time, I do not think we have a right to anticipate that these difficulties will still be there in five, six or seven years' time. That the position will be easier is what we should expect, and then we should be able to tackle this job much more expeditiously.

Mr. Scollan: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that within the next five or six years so much progress will have been made that the prognostication of the Secretary of State will prove to be wrong, and there will be the necessary water supply within a reasonable period? In other words, does he expect more in five years under this Government than in 200 years under the others?

Mr. Willis: Certainly I expect that, and I expect the Members on my own Front Bench to expect that. My argument is that we have a right to expect that the position with regard to supplies of raw materials necessary for this work will be easier in six or seven years' time than it is today.
I shall only make one more point, and that is about the provision concerning the special privileges which have existed for many years. I broach that matter because my right hon. Friend talked about paying compensation to the people who were to lose these privileges. I consider that to be an entirely wrong approach. Without going into the merits of how they obtained them, these people have enjoyed these privileges for a long time. That they are valuable privileges enjoyed at the expense of the community cannot be denied. We should say to these people, "You have enjoyed these privileges for a long time at the expense of the community. We believe now that those privileges should cease, but we are prepared to pay you a hardship allowance if you suffer any hardship." In other words, we should pay hardship allowances for the loss of these privileges, not compensation, and I hope that when this matter is considered these allowances will be treated not in a too generous fashion

as compensation, but on the lines I have suggested.

4.50 p.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I do not propose to take up the time of the House for very long, nor, if he will forgive me, will I follow in detail the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis), beyond sympathising, almost to the extent of tears running down my face, at the suffering about which we have heard at the hands of the wicked Tories for, I think, two hundred, if not two thousand, years past.

Mr. Willis: The hon. and gallant Member never experienced it; that is the trouble.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I was particularly interested in the noble families who got their water elsewhere than from a two-hundred-years-old well. I would like to know similarly the number of Socialist councillors drawing their water from sources other than a two-hundred-years-old well. I think it will be found that there is a fairly even distribution between Socialist councillors and noble families. If, however, there are more noble families than Socialist councillors in Scotland, that merely illustrates the common sense of the Scottish people, which is very obvious.
I want to deal briefly with the question of expenditure. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) that we welcome this increase in the total amount to be granted for water supplies, because the original £6 million—I think it was—was definitely far too little to be really effective. But however desirable it may be, we must watch this question of expenditure, because the amount of money being expended today by the Government on various schemes, some bad and some good, is colossal. The only place from which that money will come is the pocket of the taxpayer. If we are to spend more money—and it is so easy for us in this House to throw in another £10 or £20 million—it still has to come from the same source; we must therefore make sure, if we wish to have these schemes—and everybody wants this water scheme—the Government do everything in their power to ensure that the source of supply


of that money is not taxed out of existence and the money no longer available.
There is a vicious circle whereby the Government require enormous amounts of money for their schemes. An enormous sum is required for capital investment, for instance, but the terrific taxation of today is preventing that capital from being available. Such a vicious circle would swamp us, and I hope that the Secretary of State has not overlooked this danger, although I do not suppose that the Chancellor of the Exchequer pays very much attention to the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is the hon. and gallant Member suggesting that we should stop capital investment?

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: No, but that we want the money for it; and we will not get the money for it by sitting on industry as is done at present. That is very important to remember, because that is where the money comes from.
I would like to emphasise a point made by the hon. Member for West Perth about the question of water supply provided by a council within a hundred yards, or whatever is the fixed figure, of premises already provided with water by the owner. I hope we shall have an assurance that where those premises—whether cottar houses, steadings, farm houses or any other kind of house—are provided with water by the owner, they shall not be taxed for water just because it happens to run past the front door. It is admittedly available to them, but they are not likely to want it. I hope we shall have an assurance on this point.
The other matter on which I want to speak is the overall use of water in Scotland. When each of these Measures comes forward—whether water supply, hydro-electric development or anything else, all of which affect water—I always take the opportunity of pleading for an overall survey of the potential water supply of Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman and others will remember that at the time when the Tummel Garry scheme was being considered, there was a promise that an overall water examination would take place. It has not taken place so far, however, and these Measures are unfortunately, coming out rather piecemeal in consequence.
We cannot play the fool with water supplies in any country, because water has a very peculiar habit of doing what it pleases. There are considerable areas in Scotland where, broadly speaking, water is being diverted to such an extent that they are almost entirely free of water supply. If we take, for instance, the Garry and the area it covers, people who know the area or pass near to it will know that for a very large part of the year it is practically dry. The hope is that in areas covered by the Garry, or through which the Garry passes, people may be tempted to come back on to the land, which we badly want them to do; but there is no guarantee at all that there will be any water for them if they do come back. This is only one example: there are many others.
I hope this time that the Secretary of State will give us an assurance that under his present powers he will set up a committee of experts to examine the total overall water supply potentiality of Scotland. There is competition today between county councils, burgh councils, hydro-electric authorities, farms and all other interests which want water, and frequently it is found that two or three of these people all turn to the same loch, river or stream. That shows bad overlapping, which ought not to exist when we are dealing with such a precious thing as water. Rather than merely hope again, I ask the Secretary of State once more, as I asked his predecessors, to consider making an overall examination of this kind.
We are cutting down vast tracts of forest in Scotland and this in itself will affect the supply of water to an incredible degree within a very few years. Water is being diverted from one direction and being shoved through a hill to come out in another direction where it was not intended to flow. Water is being diverted and timber is being cut down to such an extent that water sheds are being altered, and one side of a hill which used to have an abundance of flowing water is now almost dry and the other side of the hill is getting it all. We cannot go on like this indefinitely. I do wish people would realise that fact, because it is the most serious feature of anything connected with water supplies, whether in Scotland or in any other country in the world.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. Pryde: I should like to pay to the Secretary of State for Scotland one of the highest compliments that can be given to him on behalf of Peebles and South Midlothian. I think it will be within his memory that, speaking during the passage of the Water (Scotland) Act, 1946, I emphasised from these benches that the £6⅜ million allotted to Scotland for the purpose of supplying piped water for the rural areas was grossly inadequate. It says a great deal for the Secretary of State that he is able to come to this House, in face of the strained nature of our national economy, and give us a Bill which adds something like £14 million towards the object of improving the water supplies to our rural areas which we had in mind in 1946.
I come from a county which is the home of reservoirs. Peebles has three great reservoirs, two of which are for Edinburgh Corporation, to whom I have previously paid a great compliment on the foresight of the City Fathers. The third great reservoir supplies West Lothian County Council. Strangely enough, however, the county of Peebles, because its financial resources have made it impossible, finds that it cannot provide an adequate reservoir for itself.
In the rural areas of Peebles there is a great dearth of piped water. Only last week I had to refer to the Scottish Office a complaint from an area where one of my constituents gets fresh water supplies only six days a week. He receives his supply of water by railway and on the seventh day—the Sabbath—he is not supposed to use any fresh water, because on Sundays the railway by which it is delivered does not operate. In the county of Midlothian many properties have had to be abandoned because of the shortage of water, even within two miles of the boundary of the city of Edinburgh. I have in mind that great rural area which lies between Gore Bridge and Pathhead Ford, where, on one farm in particular—Vogrie Grange—the cottars' wives must take their prams and children with them on winter mornings, when snow is on the ground, pushing their prams with one hand and carrying a pail of water in the other, for a quarter of a mile so that they may obtain sufficient water to carry on the

ordinary duties of life and bringing up families.
In that same area one of our Departments is conducting boring operations for coal and the population are apprehensive because they are afraid that the antiquated method of securing a water supply will be endangered. I am happy to say that the Minister of Fuel and Power has been very considerate and sympathetic in this matter and, notwithstanding the great need for coal, the Ministry have agreed that they will delay operations until this Bill is on the Statute Book, in order to allow the water authority to bring a supply of piped water from the great reservoir of Gladhouse right across the Roman Camp and give something like an adequate supply of water to that district. I wish to compliment the Ministry of Fuel and Power and I wish I could extend the same compliment to the Department of Agriculture in Scotland. However, that is another matter.
I think every section of this House welcomes the Bill. Reference has been made to taxation, and I wish to emphasise the fact that we shall never get anything like an adequate distribution of taxation in Scotland so long as the derating Act of 1929 is on the Statute Book. Notwithstanding what hon. Members opposite may say, it is a cold, concrete fact that under the derating Act of 1929 many people in Scotland are paying rates for other people's property. I hope the Department will end that and will take early steps to abolish the derating Act and institute a Measure for the taxation of land values in Scotland.
Reference has been made to the analogy between gas and electricity on the one hand and water on the other. I wish to point out to hon. Members that there is a great and vital difference between water and gas and electricity. Gas and electricity are all metered, but water is only metered in certain instances under the present system. Under the new system I do not think the Secretary of State contemplates metering all water supplies. In all the circumstances, I think my right hon. Friend has put before the House a Measure that marks the latent ability which everyone in this House knows he possesses, and it augurs well for government in Scotland that we


can compliment the Secretary of State on one of the finest Measures put before the House since 1945.

5.4 p.m.

Major Ramsay: Like most hon. Members, I think this Bill is a step in the right direction. In my constituency water is one of the greatest needs, and I can think of no other single factor which could do more to help our rural life and food output there than a good supply of water.
I wish to make a point concerning the supply of draining services. If we take a large amount of water from one area to another through a pipe, something has to be done about taking the water away. In my part of the world, so far I have only heard emphasis placed on the water scheme itself—the scheme to provide the water. I hope my fears are unfounded, but I think it most important that we should not find in the end that we have succeeded in bringing a lot of water from one place to another and then that there is nothing we can do to get rid of the water. Such a situation, to say the least, would be extremely aggravating to everyone. I hope we may have some assurance on this point from the Government Front Bench, because it is a matter of importance. I do not know whether the various schemes in my constituency have been approved, but we ought to be thinking about drainage at the same time as we consider water supply schemes; otherwise, trouble may arise.
Next I wish to support the plea made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) for an overall survey of water resources in Scotland. There must be some kind of liaison and co-operation between the various authorities which require water supplies. For example, water authorities and hydro-electric authorities both need water, and I can give an example from my constituency of the kind of thing that I fear. The main tributary of the North Esk River runs down to Glen Esk and at the top of Glen Esk two tributaries, the Lee and the Mark join. A very excellent water scheme has been sent to the Secretary of State, and, for all I know, may have been approved, called the Loch Lee Scheme. I imagine that it would take away most of the water from

the Lee, especially in the summer. I have also heard rumours concerning the Mark, and that the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board wish to take the waters of the Mark somewhere else for one of their schemes. I do not know whether this is true, but if so, it will mean that there will be no compensation water flowing down to the North Water of the North Esk in a dry summer. That would have an extremely detrimental effect on the quite considerable tourist traffic up Glen Esk—thousands go to see it every year. It would be most unfortunate, also, for the fishing industry, which is considerable both in the river and in the estuary. Most of the spawning beds would go. Some reference to this matter from the Government Front Bench would be very welcome.
Lastly, I wish to add my support to the plea made by other hon. Members concerning people who live in crofts in remote areas to whom this scheme can bring absolutely no benefit. I do not believe that the Secretary of State's argument of other services holds water—certainly not water on which rates should be paid. I do not think they should have to pay water rates, domestic or otherwise, at all. I hope the Secretary of State will consider this matter. It would be grossly unfair if these people had to participate in paying for something from which they cannot benefit.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. McLean Watson: I join with hon. Members who have said that we are discussing a very important Measure this afternoon, and I hope that when the Committee stage is reached we shall have a full and frank discussion of the various provisions which it contains. I am very pleased to have the opportunity of taking part in the Debate today because it kindles in my memory scenes of past days, especially in connection with the Local Government Act, 1929, of which so much has been said. The House knows that on previous occasions I have dissented from many of the provisions of that Act. It was an Act which dealt with matters that are raised again in the Bill which we are now discussing.
Without prejudice, I would join with the hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) about the clamour for uniformity—one uniform rate for public


health, for public water supply and for domestic water supply. I wonder how this principle will work out in the county from which I come? The county of Fife is famous for the number of small burghs within it, and burgh authorities in the past, being the most progressive, have gone ahead with water schemes, and have left the county far behind. I wonder whether some of the burgh authorities in that county will not have a rough deal as a result of the desire for a uniform water rate?
A number of these small burghs have their own water supply, which has been constructed and operated by those burghs. The ratepayers in those burghs have made big sacrifices in the past in order to provide an adequate water supply. Now, by the provisions of this Bill and those of the Water Act, 1946, which he has power to operate, the Secretary of State has the power to compel amalgamations. I wonder how the small burgh authorities, or indeed the large burghs—there are two such in our county as well as a number of small ones which have their own water supply—are to fare if perchance the Secretary of State should decide, in order to achieve the uniformity which he may desire, to compel the burgh councils to amalgamate with the county in order to have one water authority for the whole area?
I am aware that provision is made in the Bill for joint water authorities, and it may be possible for the burgh authorities and the county council of Fife to reach a quite satisfactory arrangement whereby the whole of the water shall be under the control of one joint authority. I hope that it will be possible for them to do that, but I am afraid that unless there is more come-and-go in the future than there has been up to now, the Secretary of State might find it necessary, in order to get that uniformity he desires, to compel the amalgamation of the various water authorities to take place. I repeat, I hope that it will not be necessary; I hope that a satisfactory arrangement will be made and that a joint water board will be set up.
In the County of Fife there are, in addition to the small burghs and the two large burghs which have their own water supplies, two big schemes which are operated by the county council. I wish to say a word about that aspect because

it, too, concerns the Act of 1929. I can remember when I was a member of the district committee of the county council. That committee had great powers. It undertook an expenditure running into hundreds of thousands of pounds to provide a water supply. It is quite true that one of the things which influenced the committee to do so was the need to provide water to Rosyth Dockyard, and Rosyth came into the scheme as well as the district committee. There was a district committee of the county council which could sit down, draft a scheme and have it submitted to the county council for approval. That is all they got from the county council. The financial responsibility rested upon the district committee.
The same is true of the Kirkcaldy district of the county council. They also provided a great water scheme. Today we have two districts in the county which did little or nothing in the way of providing water supply for their area, which are now being supplied from the two districts which undertook the construction of those great schemes. I wonder whether, before this story is complete, the ratepayers in Dunfermline and Kirkcaldy districts of the county council are again to be taxed in order to provide water for two other districts in the county which, as I have already said, did little or nothing to provide a water supply for themselves? Before this Measure reaches the Statute Book we certainly require some assurance that additional burdens are not to be placed upon the ratepayers who in the past have made great sacrifices in order to provide an adequate water supply.
Yet, as has already been pointed out, if the expenditure which, under this Bill, is to fall upon areas that must be provided with a water supply is too great, the county council will have power to give assistance from the county rates to enable that water supply to be provided. This will be a serious matter, unless we can have some assurance that the ratepayers who, in the past, have constructed these great schemes to provide their own ratepayers with water, are not again to be called upon to shoulder financial responsibilities which should not be placed upon them.
I welcome the general principle of this Bill. No matter how ill-placed rural populations may be, a good water supply should be made available. A good water


supply is one of the most vital things that can be provided. When the 1946 Water Bill was before the House I welcomed that Measure as a step in the direction of providing rural areas with a proper water supply. I only wish that these rural areas had woke up long ago in order to provide themselves with the water supplies which they desired and which they ought to have.
These two water schemes, the Glen Devon scheme and the Glen Farg in the Dunfermline district were constructed during the period of the first world war when everything was dear, including money. In the Kirkcaldy district the district committee had to borrow money at 7 per cent. for the construction, or part of the construction, of the Glen Farg water supply. These ratepayers made enormous sacrifices, not only at that particular time when the works were being constructed, but later on when they had heavy water rates to pay. These were burdens placed upon the local authority at that time and they were very onerous indeed. I can remember taking up with Sir John Gilmour, the then Secretary of State for Scotland, the question of some relief to the ratepayers in the Kirkcaldy district. The Fife County Council had made application to the Secretary of State for a reduction in the amount of interest that was being paid on the money that had to be borrowed for the construction of that scheme. I took it up with the right hon. Gentleman but what did we find? We found that while the Fife County Council were, at that time, prepared to pay a lump sum in order to get rid of some of the burdens of that scheme, they found that the Public Works Loan Board wanted as much advantage from the lump sum payment that the county council would have made as the county council would have paid by paying the 7 per cent., and I think they agreed to go on paying the 7 per cent. on the money borrowed for that scheme.
At the same time, we welcome this Measure for the additional opportunities it will give to the local authorities not only to provide a water supply. The hon. and gallant Member for Forfar (Major Ramsay) can take it quite definitely that sewerage is included in this matter just as much as water. As a matter of fact in our county before any financial advantage was offered, even before the £6 million

was offered, the county of Fife undertook two big schemes to provide water to East Fife, to the areas to which I have already referred, and not only to provide a water scheme but sewerage as well. Both of those schemes were entitled to rank for grant under that £6 million, and I am certain that the additional money that this Bill provides will enable that authority, at any rate, to complete two very important schemes—one with a view to purifying a river which is little more than a sewer at the moment. They will be able to do a great deal with regard to purifying that river as well as providing the East of Fife with a very good supply of water.
We shall have time during the Committee stage to examine this Bill more closely. I am a representative of one large burgh and three small ones and all of them are interested in this particular Measure. My business will be to see that they are not called upon to bear burdens in order to provide other people with water who should have been doing a great deal in the days that are past to provide themselves with water. I very much regret the change that was made in our local government in 1929. As I have already said, the district committees of the county councils were the bodies that really did the work. They were the real county authorities. It is true that the county councils held the purse strings and controlled the finances, but the schemes that were initiated for particular districts had to be borne by the ratepayers in those districts and all the county councils did was to supervise generally.
County council meetings sometimes lasted a very short time. Now they last a very long time, because everything has been placed on the shoulders of the county council. The work before was distributed by the system of district committees. County council representatives were able to meet representatives from the parishes, and that was a much more democratic system than the present system in Scotland. These district committees had not only control over water, but over roads and lighting. They were real effective instruments in county administration. I regret that these committees were practically wiped out, because the duties they have to perform today are not duties at all and nobody pays any attention to what the district committees do. When I was a member, and I was a member until the


change was made in the Local Government Act of 1929, I enjoyed the work. It was interesting, because at that time these district committees had control of their own districts and were really effective instruments in county administration.
As far as special water districts are concerned, it is true that we had all these special water, lighting and drainage districts. The district committees had power to establish these, and they have been continued until now. Under this Bill these special water districts are to be abolished. I am not as enthusiastic about this Measure as some of my hon. Friends. Until we get a good deal more information as to how the financial burden and this rating system are going to work out some of us will not be very easy in our minds. But we welcome the Bill on general principles. We will examine it very closely during the Committee stage to see if it is possible to make improvements and to safeguard the interests of ratepayers who, in the past have made great sacrifices, not only with regard to water, but in every other direction. As I have already said the burgh councils were the real live instruments for achieving progress. For my part, I say that these burgh councils which have made sacrifices in the past should not be asked to make additional sacrifices—not even in the sacred name of uniformity.

5.30 p.m.

Sir Basil Neven-Spence: I have no intention of reiterating the arguments in favour of providing a better water supply in the rural areas of Scotland. That case has been made out long ago, and everybody on both sides of the House very naturally welcomes this Bill most warmly. I want rather to direct attention to one or two points of principle which I think are worth looking into.
Under Clause 1, as the Secretary of State said, the public water rate is to be charged on the gross value of all properties. Now, reading between the lines of the Bryce Walker Report, in paragraph 16 the Committee were clearly impressed by the argument in favour of making a fundamental change in the rating system of Scotland, and they would have liked to put the entire burden of the water rate on the occupier. Faced with the alternative of swallowing a camel or a gnat, they appear

to have chosen the gnat and decided that the burden ought to be divided; but they have quite rightly recommended that the main part of the burden should fall on the occupier; their recommendation was that 25 per cent. should fall on the owner.
That recommendation has not been followed, for the perfectly good reason which the Secretary of State gave, that it was desirable to have some degree of flexibility; and that is why we have the figures in the Bill, which will place the burden on the occupier to the extent of not less than two-thirds or more than four-fifths of the total. That is a move in the right direction, but I rather wish the Bryce Walker Committee had gone the whole hog and taken a decisive step in this matter, which might have led to the long overdue reform of the rating system in Scotland.
Why has the right hon. Gentleman not accepted the other recommendation of the Bryce Walker Committee, that the public water rate should have a minimum of 2d. and a maximum of 6d.? I should like the Joint Under-Secretary, in replying, to tell us the reasons for not putting on a limit. Possibly they do not know what the figure will work out at, and obviously there will be very wide variations in the rates that will fall in different areas. However, I think there are good grounds for putting a definite limit on the public water rate, certainly in the Highlands and Islands. For one thing, if it approaches anything like 1s in the £ gross rateable value it will cause acute financial embarrassment to the great majority of the crofting or smallholding estates in the Highlands and Islands. The rents for these smallholdings are mostly extremely small, running from £3 10s. to £5 a year, and the returns to the landlords are so microscopic that I am quite certain that if the public water rate comes out at anything like 1s. in the £ many of these estates will become insolvent—a result which I think nobody would desire to see. Therefore, I hope that some consideration will be given to this aspect of the question. It might be advisable simply for these smallholding areas to have some sort of limit.
What is the justification for levying a public water rate on subjects which are neither in receipt of a water supply at the present time nor likely to be in


receipt of one within any reasonable foreseeable period of time? I think that is quite an unjust proposal; and to my mind it is rendered doubly unjust by the high maximum proportion of 33⅓ per cent. of the total rate which is to be placed upon the public water rate. There are a great many places, such as farms in remote, upland areas of the Highlands, and small islands, which, as far as I can see, will never get the benefit of this Bill. I only wish they were to benefit. The hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) referred to people drawing their water from wells. It so happens that at the present day my own family draws water from the same well my ancestors have drawn water from since the 15th century. It is quite a good well; I do not think getting our water there has done any harm—although it is very difficult to get anything to put into the water these days, partly because it is scarce, and also because it is so dear. I know, therefore, as possibly no other hon. Member of this House does, the extreme disadvantage to people in rural areas of having to carry their water considerable distances from wells. There is not the slightest doubt that a whole lot of these places will never get the benefit of this Bill at all.
I am rather inclined to agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) when he says that this flat-iron procedure was evolved largely because of a desire for administrative convenience. I cannot for the life of me see that any county authority would have the slightest difficulty in compiling, in a matter of hours, a list of all the places into which they know very well they will never be able to put water under this Bill. They ought to be excluded altogether; or, failing that, there ought to be a definite statutory obligation on local authorities to see that these outlying places get a water supply, then I would not have the slightest objection to their paying the public water rate, or the domestic water rate, or both—and nor would the people who live in these places.
I am quite familiar with the arguments in paragraph 13 of the Bryce Walker Report as to why this public water rate should be borne by everyone. Obviously, these places can never get the benefit of

the services provided for fire fighting, sewer flushing and street cleansing, and it comes down to an argument that this public water rate is a health insurance premium. I simply cannot accept that argument. What health insurance is there for the family on the upland farm who will continue to have to draw their water, possibly from a shallow or surface well, with the possibility of infection with typhoid or hydatid disease? If there is to be any insurance in these matters, then these people are just as much entitled to protection from disease on public health grounds as anybody else in the country. Charge a public water rate by all means, but do make sure that these people get the benefit.
Clause 2 (5) seems to me to drive a coach and horses right through the main principle of the Bill, because that Subsection of the Clause provides that the provisions of Clause 2
shall not apply to lands and heritages being a holding within the meaning of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts.
I really would like to know what possible argument can be deduced in favour of relieving the occupants of smallholdings from paying a domestic water rate. If that is done in the Highlands and Islands, it will throw a very onerous and absolutely unreasonable burden on the rest of the community in these places. The local authorities are fully alive to this and what it will mean is that the crofters and smallholders, who are by no means the worst off section of the community, will be paying no domestic water rate, while their relatives who may be living in cottages and engaged in some other kind of work, such as old ladies living in cottages and trying to eke out a livelihood by knitting, will have to pay the domestic water rate, and, with it, will have to bear a share of the whole burden which the smallholders themselves ought to be sharing in the interests of common justice.
The right hon. Gentleman is certain to have representations from the local authorities on this subject, which would seem a rather delicate one for me to touch upon. I have no desire whatever to add anything to the burden which the smallholder has to bear, because he has a hard life and I have every sympathy with him. There is nobody in the rural areas who is more anxious to get a piped water supply than the occupants of these smallholdings.


My correspondence for years back testifies to that. They welcome it, and what is more, I am prepared to say that they are perfectly willing to pay their fair share of the burden. I happen to have turned up a letter which I received from a smallholder in Shetland last year. He had written to me to ask what were the prospects of this water scheme coming into being, and this is what he says about his smallholder neighbours:
We are wondering what the prospects are now of getting the water scheme started. It is only right that they should know the position as some of them are going to try to get the water in themselves if the scheme is dropped.
That is direct evidence that the smallholders are willing to bear a fair share of the burden of the water supply, such as would be entailed by paying the domestic water rate. I should be very sorry indeed to see any additional burdens placed upon the cottars and people living in small houses in these areas, who have already got a grievance against the smallholding community because of the great difference of the rate burden paid by these two sections. If this is done, it will add fuel to the fire, and I hope, therefore, that this point will be looked into very carefully before we finish with this Bill.
Otherwise, I most warmly welcome the Bill, and I am only sorry that I happen to be a dweller on one of these very remote places—a small island, which has no prospects, as far as I can see, of getting any piped water supply. Nevertheless, nothing would please me more than to see my smallholder neighbours and the farmers in Orkney, and all rural dwellers in Scotland, getting the enormous benefit of a piped water supply. I hope that an effort will be made to speed up these schemes and get them into operation as quickly as possible.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. Hubbard: One need not be surprised at the general welcome which this Bill has received today. Nevertheless, there have been certain reservations, particularly from the other side of the House, which I find it very difficult to believe, particularly those in regard to the payment of the charge for the water which is to be met from the general rates to the extent of 33⅓ per cent. It has been suggested that, because there are many areas not likely to benefit from the fund made available for

the development of water supplies, it is reasonable that they should not be expected to meet this charge. I find that very difficult to follow, because there are a great many people who pay the general rate and who themselves never expect to get certain benefits at all.
For instance, persons who have no children, or persons who have never been married and therefore do not expect to have children, still have to pay the education rate, and I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite would not suggest that, because such people have no children, they ought not to contribute to the general education of children in this country. It is also true that there are people who are blind, as has already been mentioned by the Secretary of State, and people who are invalids or infirm, who still have to pay for street lighting, though they are unable to use the streets at night. There are many people who do not enjoy many of the amenities for which they are rated, but nobody would suggest that, because there is a section of the community which is not going to enjoy the benefits of this Bill, and for whom there is no prospect of their ever being likely to enjoy them, they should be exempt from paying these particular charges.

Sir B. Neven-Spence: In that case, would the hon. Gentleman support a Measure placing a statutory obligation upon the local authority to carry water into these places?

Mr. Hubbard: Yes. I am all for that, but I think the boot is on the other foot. That is the purpose of the Bill, and I think we ought to call attention to it. I do not represent a rural area, but I am perfectly satisfied that not one of my constituents will oppose the increased payment. They will not directly benefit from it, because they do not reside in rural areas, but the whole purpose of the Bill is the provision of water in those areas in which it has not been found practicable in the past, because of high costs, to have a piped water supply.
We all give this Bill a general welcome, with reservations. Although many of us live in the more populated areas, which have proper water supplies, we are particularly anxious that an opportunity should be given to our fellows to enjoy the things which we have enjoyed for so long. Indeed, I think that all the


Measures passed by the present Government concerning housing in the rural areas have made provision for a considerable subsidy for houses built in the remote districts, and to the cost of which everyone makes a contribution and to which contribution nobody could reasonably object. If it is a question of people who are not going to enjoy these advantages objecting to certain terms, then I suggest that the boot is on the other foot.
I am disappointed that this Bill does not fulfill the condition that the very maximum of the rural areas of Scotland, no matter how remote, should be provided with a water supply. If it is a question of people in rural areas providing water supplies at their own expense, that is another matter, but our experience is that, in a great many villages in the rural areas of Scotland, we find pumps at one end of the street. If, however, there is a distillery in the district, then pipes are supplied to the distillery, so that pure water goes into the distillery and passes through the neck of a bottle, where it gains a new value and becomes almost holy water. In some of the places where it then goes, it is diluted to such an extent that it becomes almost pure water again. If, indeed, water has been piped into these areas at the expense of those who have so enhanced the value of water—and, indeed, in Scotland, we are jealous of our Scotch whisky industry—those who have benefited by it ought not to object. There could be no better sacrifice than by putting piped water into a distillery or brewery.
I have read in the Press that, even in these remote areas, the beer used to flow like water. I think it yet trickles like water in some areas. Therefore, nothing but good can come from this Bill. People ought not to measure progress by what they, personally, get out of it. I am sure that all hon. Members wish that these benefits should be shared by Scotland as a whole.
I know that, so far as increased rates are concerned, there are difficulties ahead. I, like my hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) am rather anxious about compensation. I think that a very rigid investigation should be made into what compensation people are entitled to receive. They should be asked, if they own anything,

how they came to own it, and whether it cost anything to acquire. If it did not, then I do not see how they can have a reasonable claim for compensation. If, in the past, they grabbed it, then it should be grabbed back, and they should not be entitled to compensation. I am also worried about compensation in another form. Being a member of a local authority, I know the difficulties. I should like to pay a tribute to our forefathers; they had great foresight. It is the duty of a council man to visit catchment areas in order to ensure that there is the necessary water. I repeat, I think our forefathers showed great foresight when they planned these catchment areas. Most authorities run up against difficulties in their anxiety to provide an adequate water supply.
On the question of compensation water, I am a little worried as to whether the provisions are sufficient. I know that some adjustments have been made since the 1946 Act, but I am rather concerned about the case where a local authority has to provide an amount of compensation water merely because it is so laid down, and because, perhaps, it was necessary some years ago. Therefore, I want to be sure that a local authority charged with the supply of a sufficiency of wholesome water will not be embarrassed by having to continue to provide compensation water which, when supplied, only finds its way down to the sea.
We are making rapid developments in Scotland in industrial matters, housing, hydroelectric schemes, and regional gas and electricity schemes. When I was on the town council I got very worried when I saw a tremendous expenditure on the digging of drains, the laying of pipes and the sealing up of roads, and when another department then came along and broke open those roads. I know it will be a tremendous expense to lay pipelines into these remote areas. I am wondering whether we could look at these things from a common-sense point of view, and whether, where electricity or gas, or some other service, has to be carried over an equally long distance, there could not be some co-operation so that the water pipes are laid at the same time, thus reducing the costs. Could not local authorities who are carrying out this Bill make contact with other departments and ascertain whether they intend to carry utility


services over the same area, so that they might work co-jointly and thus reduce the costs? Without reservation I welcome this Bill. I am convinced that it is only another step forward in an endeavour to provide for our country cousins those things which, in the past, we thought ought only to be reserved for ourselves.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. MacLeod: As the representative of a large rural constituency which has a far greater proportion of water than is its due, particularly on the West coast—though, as the Secretary of State pointed out, that water is not, unfortunately, regulated or supplied to the houses of the people—I welcome this Bill, and hope that it will amend the present unfortunate state of affairs. It is interesting to remember that, not so long ago, the £6,375,000 which was made available for grants was considered sufficient, to the extent that, under the previous Act, houses were not allowed to be erected without a water supply. One can only hope that this increase to £20 million will prove adequate. Like the hon. Member for West Perth and Kinross (Mr. Snadden), I doubt whether in view of the rise in costs of labour and material, this will be so. I disagree with the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and Kinross (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) who was afraid that we should spend too much money. I would rather see a cut in other expenditure, and this sum increased.
In my constituency, apart from grants already provided, a further £1,000,000 or more is required. If, as the Secretary of State suggested this afternoon, this £20 million is governed by the available labour and material, I shall make no apology for appearing parochial when I ask that special consideration should be given to the Highlands. I have done that before on many occasions in this House, although not so often as I should have liked. The majority of my constituents would far rather have water in their houses than electricity. At present in many areas water has very often to be carried a mile and more. One must remember that not only has it to be carried into the house, but it also has to be thrown out again.
The development of the tourist industry can be regarded as one of the greatest potential sources of wealth in the

Highlands today. But one must take into account the damage already being done by the cut in petrol and the Wages Catering Act, which, incidentally, means that more people are finding it difficult to pay the hotel charges and want to go into the smaller houses. I believe that the tourist industry is being stultified by the lack of adequate water supplies in the crofting communities. Many people have told me that, even should they have a room to spare, they are unable to take in visitors because of the lack of a water supply. We know that every encouragement must be given to summer visitors of moderate means. I am sure many smallholders would help to augment the milk supplies if they had a supply of water to wash up the dairy utensils. One could give other examples of how water is required to develop our basic industries to the nation's advantage.
I agree with the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) that insufficient enemy was being devoted to this problem of supplying water, and I should like to see a speeding up of efforts in this direction. [An HON. MEMBER: "That was also true before the war."] I know it was. Today the use of water as a beverage in one form or another is becoming more and more necessary owing to the penal taxation imposed on the wine of the country.
I should also like to raise a point which I know is causing the local authorities in the north a certain amount of worry; this is covered by Clause 2 (5). It is felt that careful consideration must be given to the question of the fair and equitable incidence of the rates of those who will benefit, and that there should be no just ground for complaint that some ratepayers are bearing a heavier burden than they should. The Secretary of State said that justice in these matters was difficult, but I hope that the Government will look into this matter further before the Committee stage. It is also felt that it is most impracticable to ask the local authorities to negotiate with individual smallholders. In my constituency there are some 6,000 of them.
I hope that water will be supplied without undue delay to the homes of our people. In the Highlands the lack of this primary amenity is the cause of depopulation, and I hope that none of us will rest until there is water in every home in the land.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Carmichael: This subject apparently does not create much enthusiasm in the House, and yet it is very important for the people of Scotland. At the outset, we should congratulate the Exchequer. I gather that some two years ago the Exchequer agreed to make a grant to Scotland of something over £6 million, and this Bill now provides that the amount shall be in the region of £20 million. That is about the first concession that I can remember coming to Scotland, as opposed to England, for very many years. It may be felt in the House that a person coming from an industrial centre like Glasgow should have little to say on a matter of this kind. I bow to the pressure of Members from rural areas in their desire to improve this Bill, but I think people in a city like Glasgow have equal responsibilities.
The Bill has two main purposes. First, it is hoped to regulate the rate charge in a more beneficial way than formerly, and secondly, the grant is largely for the purpose of improving not only rural water supplies but the sewerage systems of the country as a whole. Who will deny the fact that even in and around the City of Glasgow there are many burghs and some counties which could usefully spend money on improving their sewerage schemes and by so doing improving the conditions of the river that runs through the City of Glasgow, the river Clyde?
The only disturbing feature of the Debate has been the fear about the charge. I know of no commodity or service so cheap to any community as the water supply. It is true that there is an anomaly in that those who live nearest the natural supply, the people in the rural areas, are usually denied an adequate supply compared with the people in the big towns. In other words, the town from which I come is well supplied. We probably exaggerate and say that we have the finest water supply in the country. I should not go that length, but I think we have at least one of the finest water supplies in the country. I have no doubt that many of the people living near the natural fall are seriously handicapped, and that a very good case can be made out for improving the supply of water in rural areas.
I support the claims of Members on both sides of the House who want responsibility to be placed on the authorities which levy charges to provide an adequate water supply to people in remote places. The principal matter I want to raise is that of compensation. It may be that because I have only the mind of a layman I am unable to appreciate the contents of Clause 26. However, I am taking the precaution of not opposing the Government on that point. Instead, I want to ask one or two questions so that I may be guided in the Committee stage. A number of Subsections in Clause 26 need clarification. A local authority has the right to make an agreement with people having a vested interest, and can exercise its authority ultimately to end any agreement with such people. I want to know who are the people who have a vested interest in the supply of water. I can think of certain people who may have such an interest. I gather that the natural fall of water on to certain ground permits the landlord of that ground to make a charge on the authorities who are supplied finally with that water, and in order to discontinue that arrangement that landlord can be compensated. The final authority rests with the Secretary of State for Scotland, and under the Land Clauses Acts, as indicated in Clause 26 (2), the assessment is arrived at.
I want to know what such a landlord did to add to the value of the water which, in the natural process, falls on land of which he may be in possession. In some cases we have grave doubts whether the landlords are entitled to own the land, let alone the water which falls on it. We on this side of the House have often spoken of land, but in recent nationalising Measures we have accepted the principle of compensation, and I make no quarrel with it. I think that in the ordinary evolution of society, unless there is some catastrophic change, it is impossible to avoid a form of compensation to people possessing property which may be required by the community, but when it comes to water we are entitled to ask how the supply of water is to be valued and how the responsibility of assessment is to be measured. I would like some information from the Secretary of State on those questions.
Subsection (4) makes the position extremely difficult. Perhaps I may have the


permission of the House to read this Subsection:
This section applies to any obligation to give to any person other than a local authority or a local water authority a supply of water (whether for domestic purposes or for purposes other than domestic purposes and whether in bulk or otherwise) free of charge or on terms more favourable to the person having the vested interest in the obligation …
In other words, someone has a vested interest in the obligation, and we have to supply water to that person free of charge. There may be a reasonable answer to this, but I object to people being compensated for water, and I want to be quite clear how the compensation is to be measured, what may be the financial obligations of a local authority? If I can get some assurances on these points I shall be able, in Committee, to avoid unnecessary Amendments.
I do not believe that anyone can oppose a Bill of this kind; anything that can be done to improve the general water supply of the people of Scotland, especially those in rural areas, must welcome a Measure of this kind. I hope, however, that the £20 million is not merely a paper figure, but will be spent in the not too dim and distant future. I believe that the money can be spent more usefully than that which was spent on clearing away bings by hand labour, instead of machinery. I hope the money will be spent at a reasonably early date on the improvement of water supplies so that we can, at the same time, find useful employment for those who might otherwise be unemployed.

6.14 p.m.

Lord William Scott: There are three essentials for a satisfactory water supply—first, that the water should be good; second, that it should be ample in all seasons; third, that it should be cheap. Cheapness is probably just as important as either of the other essentials. I notice that the Bill deals almost entirely with the third factor, and I presume that the Secretary of State and his advisers will assure themselves that the schemes which require approval will be satisfactory. From what I have heard today I believe the right hon. Gentleman will see that where water is supplied the supply will be ample. Although we in Scotland are familiar with floods at frequent intervals, we also have droughts.
As I have said, cheapness is dealt with almost entirely in the Bill. We must all

be aware that the expenses of a water scheme are infinitely greater today than pre-war. The Minister has shown great shrewdness in dealing with this matter. There were only two methods by which he could secure cheapness, one being by way of a satisfactory Exchequer grant and the other by spreading the burden. The present grant of £20 million is very much better than the previous £6 million.
From my reading of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman is spreading the burden of the cost of providing water supplies as widely as he dare. During the Debate various reasons have been put forward as to how the farmer who lives at a distant place would get no water supply himself, but would pay the public rate for a supply to other people. We have been told of the various advantages he will get, but I think it would have been more honest if we had admitted, straight away, that the reason why he was to be rated was because it was essential to spread the burden as widely as possible, and that it was not because he would benefit by the better health of someone else in a town. It is a pity that time has been wasted in suggesting that there were any other reasons why that farmer should have to pay the water rate.
Generally speaking, it is accepted that water should be treated as a commodity and paid for by those who use it. But there are certain exceptions. To secure cheapness, a certain proportion of the cost has to be carried by the community at large. First, there is the Exchequer grant and, second, there is the public rate. Over and above that certain privileged people will be empowered to transfer the cost of the water which they use to others who are supposed to be in a better position to bear the burden. We are all in favour of securing a cheap water supply for those to whom it can be supplied, but let us recognise the fact that quite probably people and communities will be called upon to pay a very considerable sum for the supply of water which can be of no personal benefit to themselves as individuals or as communities. We shall have something to say about this when we come to the Committee stage.
It would be interesting to know to what extent the costs of water schemes have increased during the last 10 years. I do not think it would be unreasonable to say that they have increased by


approximately the same proportion as in the case of housebuilding. If the Under-Secretary can let us have information on this point I am sure we should all like to hear it, as it would be of assistance to us when considering schemes in our own neighbourhoods.
There is another matter which undoubtedly should assist towards cheapness, and that is that during the last year or two some very large areas have combined to produce a co-operative water scheme. I hope that that will tend towards reducing the actual cost of the water to the individual. If that is the case, then I think we are justified, in a very large measure, in accepting many of the Bill's proposals to which we might otherwise have had to object.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Lord William Scott) tell us that there are three necessities for a good water supply, three conditions that govern a good supply—that it should be ample, that it should be cheap, and that the water should be good. I am perfectly certain that no one in any part of the House will disagree that those are three conditions for a good water supply. It occurred to me, however, that there is a fourth essential condition which, for some strange reason—or so it seemed to me, at any rate—he omitted altogether, although in many ways the fourth condition is the most important—that the water supply should be absolutely clear in every sense whatsoever of private control. It ought to be publicly controlled in the fullest sense of the term.
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should have omitted that essential condition for the creation of a good water supply. I think that if our air supply had been governed in the way that our water supplies have been governed in days gone by the community would not have tolerated that condition of affairs for a single second, for the simple reason that while we can go without water for three days, we can go without air only three minutes. Of course, a camel can can go without water for, I believe, a week: but nobody wants to be a camel.
I am intrigued by the second purpose of this Bill—to provide grants in aid of rural water supplies in Scotland under the

Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1944. I am very interested in that, because some years ago I happened to be staying in a part of Scotland where my first job every morning was to get two pails and go at least 100 yards to a spring to fill them as full as possible, to make sure I did not need to make a second journey during the day. When dirty weather came that spring became so foul it was impossible to use the water. Then I had to walk half a mile elsewhere for water with my two pails and bring them back full. That was not nearly so much a job as an art—to walk half a mile with two pails full of water and arrive home with the pails still full of water. That was only during a holiday. When I realise that that sort of thing is the lot of, perhaps, thousands of people in our country still, then I feel that any opposition to this Bill ought to be washed out of court altogether. [HON. MEMBERS: "If we have the water."] The water at the spring was not water in which anybody would have liked to wash, let alone drink. The Bill will be welcome if it puts an end to such a state of affairs as that, which still exists in many parts of Scotland.
There is another aspect of the Bill to which I want to turn—only very briefly, because, I believe, this will be explored more intimately in Committee. The main object to the Bill is to provide a uniform system of rating and charging for water in Scotland. That seems quite a reasonable course to pursue—to try to get a uniform rate. However, we have to realise that such a course, however estimable, may create anomalies to which we have to pay attention.
I think particularly of the City of Glasgow, in which, naturally, I am concerned, and which is the supplying authority for a good part of the surrounding areas. No longer will it have the power to levy rates. Now it will collect the gross sum for its water services; but that gross sum must be proportional to the valuation of the City of Glasgow and the area which it supplies. If we could say that the rate which is to be charged would produce the same return in the surrounding areas as it does in the City of Glasgow, then there could be, no possible objection. However, the valuations in Glasgow and in the areas which it supplies are not necessarily the


same. In fact, they may vary by as much as 25 per cent., with the result that the total sum that comes into Glasgow from the surrounding areas is much less than that which is collected from the same rate within a comparable part of the city. Yet, the outside parts are getting the same services as those in the city, and those services, because the populations round about are more scattered, are a much more costly business than those in the city.
That is a point which I feel will require to be looked into. Under Clause 11, while my right hon. Friend has power to reduce the charges imposed by a supplying authority he has not power to increase the charges, and I feel that that is a power which he ought to acquire before the Bill becomes an Act. I suggest to him that in order to meet this point he should add a Clause, or otherwise make provision, to ensure that a local authority may ask him, if he is satisfied with the justice of its case, to impose a rate weighted up to the extent of 25 per cent., on the area to which that authority is supplying the water. I make that suggestion for his consideration in view of the fact that in the Bill as it stands he has only power to reduce charges. I think that he ought to reserve to himself the power, when he is thoroughly satisfied of the need and rightness of a claim, to increase charges if necessary. In spite of these little anomalies, and in view of the tremendous effect which this Bill is bound to have on the population of Scotland, I, like other Members in this House, welcome its presentation today.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. Duthie: I do not intend to touch on rating or acquisition or any of the other points already raised. I should like to draw the attention of the Secretary of State and Members of the House to one other point with regard to the proposals in the Bill. The Secretary of State for Scotland, in his opening speech, mentioned that he had a leaning towards central schemes. The sum of £20 million, which is being provided under the Bill, is obviously quite insufficient to take care of the schemes already put forward, and which have in great measure been approved. These schemes, at the best, can only be long-term schemes. The benefits can only accrue after a passage of time—in some cases,

as the right hon. Gentleman admitted, in 15 years—but the problem is a very urgent one. In Banffshire and neighbouring counties, there has been considerable discussion in connection with the Cabbrach and Avon schemes. Neighbouring county councils have not seen eye to eye in these schemes, and consequently there has been delay in getting anything done.
The position in Banffshire and in northern rural Scotland is that the water position is extremely difficult, and a condition of great urgency has arisen. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the purely local schemes that have been put forward and which are eminently practicable being put into effect at once. Banffshire, like all the northern counties, is very rich in water. Some of our villages and areas which are in direst need have magnificent water supplies quite near. There are small schemes which would cost £2,000 or £3,000 to bigger schemes which might cost £20,000. In all, I understand that the county could be adequately taken care of for the period of the next 30 years, with considerable housing development, for an outlay of £150,000 or thereabout. The major scheme mooted will cost about £3 million. Let the major scheme form part and parcel of the long-term policy, but for our present and urgent needs let us have these small schemes put into effect.
The absence of water is causing the gravest hindrance to employment. Some of the small burghs and individual towns on the Banffshire coast have only one industry—and that is fishing. If anything happens to the fishing, we have nothing to fall back on. We are endeavouring to build up other industries. For instance, in the town of Banff we want to start a laundry, but there is not enough water for domestic purposes, as the right hon. Gentleman knows because representatives of his Department went there to report. That is the type of scheme which requires urgent attention and which should be the first to benefit under this Bill.
I heartily welcome the Bill, although there are many points to be taken up in Committee and many defects to be ironed out. I look upon it as bringing speedy aid to our northern counties. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. MacLeod) mentioned the tourist trade. We could do a great deal more for our


northern counties to attract tourists if we had better water supplies. I hope they will be forthcoming. For the reason that I see in this Bill the promise of speedy assistance for our very needy northern territories, I most heartily welcome it.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. Scollan: Unlike all the previous speakers, I am not going to say that I welcome the Bill. I want to criticise it. There is only one good and really worthwhile point in the whole Bill, and that is that it makes a grant of £20 million. I have no doubt that everyone in Scotland will welcome that grant as manna from Heaven, although they may not be too enthusiastic about the Bill, because obviously, if we are to have a uniform system of rating, then someone on a low rate at the moment is going to be put on a higher rate, and is not going to welcome the Bill.
One thing which has always struck me when we have been dealing with water supplies, either in England or Scotland, is the parochial outlook we always bring to bear in the search for it. Every little town in every little district sets about looking for a catchment area where it can buy from the local landlord the rights of the water supply immediately adjacent to its own particular area. If some statesman in this country at some period was big enough to survey the whole of this little island, he would be able to see in the Western Highlands, from Glasgow to Oban, a water supply due to rainfall which would supply the whole population of this island. All it needs is a little imagination. But we cannot get away from the parish pump outlook. Consequently, we get all these little schemes coming along hotch-potch and higgledy-piggledy.
The hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) drew attention to one particular anomaly in that the Glasgow citizen, who enjoys some of the finest water supply in the whole world from Loch Katrine, has to pay a higher water rate for that service than some of the people in adjacent districts who receive the service, and who are not citizens of Glasgow. They belong to foreign towns. I would like also to draw attention to the fact that there is another section of Glasgow citizens who do not get the Loch Katrine water supply

at all. They get water from an old-fashioned scheme started by a private company. Like all other private companies, when they started they had one eye on supplying the water and the other on the income. The result is that even today citizens on the south side of Glasgow get a very poor water supply. I do not mean that they do not get plenty of water: they get plenty, but it is very poor in quality and it is not absolutely clean.
This in itself demonstrates that what is wanted is one body to deal with the question of water supply either for the whole of the island or for Scotland alone. If I had the power, I would set up a board similar to the Electricity Board or the Gas Board. I would give them the job of supplying every town on this island with a clean, pure water supply. I would give them the job of cleaning our dirty rivers, which are a disgrace. When the Government begin to think on those lines, I will welcome a Measure of that nature. At the moment, I can only welcome the £20 million.

6.41 p.m.

Major McCallum: Like most other hon. Members, with the exception of the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan), I welcome the greater part of this Bill, and, like him, I also welcome the £20 million. There are one or two points upon which I should like further information from the Joint Under-Secretary of State. In his opening speech, the Secretary of State said that he had been in full consultation with the local authorities in drawing up this Measure. I have had representations made to me which do not appear to bear out that statement. I received a telegram this afternoon in which exception is taken to Clause 2 (5) of which we have heard a good deal already. I should like the Joint Under-Secretary to clarify the position. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House are puzzled.
I agree that in these days the rating burden must be spread over the whole country. Many of my hon. Friends have said that there are large numbers of people in the Highlands and Islands who will never see a public water supply in the next 100 years. There is not the slightest doubt about that but, on the other hand, as the rating burden is spread over the whole of the public, then if a


local authority considers that a public water rate should be levied on all occupiers of houses, the smallholders and crofters will have the rate levied on them. Yet, under Clause 2 (5) smallholders and crofters are to be exempt from this domestic water rate—or so it would appear. That is a point upon which I should like further explanation.
When the Bryce Walker Committee discussed the question of smallholders and crofters they considered whether it was fair to make a certain minimum fixed charge against these people or to include them and rate them on the gross valuation of their houses, not on the croft or holding. The croft or holding is subject to agricultural derating and would not give a fair standard. I think that the Secretary of State has received—if not, he is about to receive it—a memorandum on this point from the Association of County Councils. They feel that it would be fair where a public water supply is supplied to a crofter or smallholder that he should pay the domestic rate. The Secretary of State quoted a case of the old lady who said that although she could have water brought into her house she would much rather pay her 6d. a week for two pails of water instead of paying a 6s. rate for the privilege of having water piped into the house. That is the position today. There are a number of people who are not clear where they stand in these matters. They feel that they are now being subjected to a public water rate and that there is some catch about it.
The local authority may feel that it would be much fairer to everybody concerned that where a domestic supply is provided in a house the occupier should be rated for that water. One hon. Member talked about a shilling rate. Various sums have been quoted. Surely, the rate would be much more in the neighbourhood of 3d. or 4d. or even as low as 2d. I am certain that there is not a crofter, and particularly a crofter's wife, who would not pay 4d. a week willingly in order to be able to turn on a tap and have water supplied in the house, instead of having to take a pail and fetch the water as the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) said that he had to do. Clause 2 (5) is perplexing local authorities. I would emphasise that these representations are being made by the Association of County Councils as a

whole. This is their opinion; it is not merely the opinion of the crofting counties. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will give us some enlightenment.
It may be said that the financial position of the crofters is such that they could not afford to pay for a public water supply. There is already in existence machinery for the crofters to appeal against the rating burden on the grounds of financial incapacity. Already in many areas crofters as well as others have to pay the special water rate of the district. It is true that special water areas are to be discontinued, but the public water supply to these crofters and smallholders will continue. Again, the local authorities consider that the fairest system would be to bring them within the provisions of this Bill.
As has been said there are thousands of crofters and smallholders who will not see a public water supply for a very long time. There are quite a number who receive a private water supply. By that I mean that the water is provided by private enterprise—that system which seems to be anathema to hon. Members opposite. There are many estates in the Highlands, particularly in my own county, where an ample, good, healthy water supply is provided by a landlord to his smallholders, crofters and cottagers. That is done up many a glen and in many a difficult remote area where no local authority water supply will be provided for many a long year. It does not do anyone much good to deride the action of private owners who provide water in places like that.
I wish to refer to one matter in connection with water schemes which are before the Secretary of State for approval or are being carried out now. Many local authorities are experiencing difficulty in providing accommodation for the engineers who are to carry out these schemes. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will know of one local authority to which this applies. Perhaps he may be able to urge on the appropriate Department the necessity of doing what they can to assist local authorities in providing housing accommodation of one sort or another to enable the engineers to get on with the work—in this respect I am referring to the Outer and Inner Hebrides. There are bound to be other points that will come up during


the Committee stage on which we shall want to say something, but in conclusion may I say that, like most other Members who have spoken, I welcome the Bill.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: Most hon. Members are agreed that it is desirable to go into this question of trying to provide a uniform system. of rating for water. I think that the method which has been adopted by the Secretary of State will meet with some criticism during the Committee stage, particularly in regard to the provision whereby occupiers are rated irrespective of whether or not they receive any water supply. My right hon. Friend is in every way justified in making this change. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) said, the question of providing a clean water supply has been one of our basic problems which has debarred progress from the point of view of housing and health in our rural areas. The farmer up in the glen, to whom the hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) referred, might be seriously affected by trouble elsewhere, because there are no barriers to epidemics. As the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) well knows, a bad water supply is one of the worst things for spreading epidemics.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Even bad water does not, run up hills.

Mr. Ross: I am amazed at the superficiality of that reply. We have had typhoid epidemics in Scotland within recent memory, and it is not water running up hills that has spread the disease.
There has been more or less unanimous approval of the fact that the Secretary of State has managed to prise out of the hard-hearted custodians of the Treasury an extra £14 million. The hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) was not so sure about this. He was inclined to look this gift horse in the mouth. To use his own colourful language, he thought that it would cause a vicious circle which would swamp the country financially. Government expenditure should be considered in

relation to its purpose, and there is no Scotsman who will deny the great need for expenditure of this kind. The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh were quite justified in maintaining that we should not allow to pass unnoticed my right hon. Friend's reference to the fact that it may take 15 to 20 years before we get any return for this £20 million. We want something done for Scotland now, not in 15 years' time.

Mr. Woodburn: This work takes a long time. The work is going on now, but it takes many years to build up these large waterworks. It will take about 15 years to do it, unless there is unemployment throughout the country—which we hope will not be the case—setting labour and materials free for the work.

Mr. Ross: I do not think we have much to pride ourselves on if we take 15 or 20 years to spend this £20 million. I do not want to see this limit put on one of our great basic programmes. If we are to get on with housing schemes in the rural areas, we have to spend this money much quicker. It is really a matter of priority. I do not think we should be wasting labour if we were to speed up these schemes.
My only other point is this question of compensation. I like this idea of getting an extra £14 million from the Treasury, but I do not like the taxpayer of Scotland having to dip deeper into his pocket to pay out compensation for an effete privilege. If it has been decided to end this era of privilege, surely we should not have to buy these people out, when in all probability for the past hundred years they have been confiscating money from the taxpayers. While we have spent a whole day talking about water supplies for Scotland, the fact remains that it will take many hours to debate this subject during the Committee stage, when many more important points will have to be raised. As Scotsmen, we are inclined to talk about everything being all right in Scotland, but there is still a lot to be done, and from the point of view of this chance to do something more for Scotland I welcome this Bill.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. Spence: I rise to ask the Secretary of State to allow adequate time to elapse


between the Second Reading of this Bill and the Committee stage. I ask the question because, when I approached my local authority before coming to this Debate, I found that they had received a copy of this Bill only on Saturday and were therefore unable to give me very much information as to their views. I do not know whether that is the experience of other members. The Secretary of State has said that this is a local authority Measure, and it is from the local authorities that the various Committee points will arise. I should like an assurance that there will be due time for reflection by local authorities of all kinds before we take the Committee stage.
The other point is whether the hon. Gentleman who is to wind up the Debate can give us a target figure for what the rates are likely to be after the £20 million has been expended. Could he not give a target figure, say, for Aberdeenshire or for Glasgow? It would clear our minds a great deal when we are thinking over the point of how the percentages of public water charges and domestic water charges are to be allocated. I am talking about the rating charge, not the amount of £20 million. If the figure is a small one, then the problem will not be very difficult, but if it is a big one, we shall need to know more about it.
I regret that it did not seem to be made quite clear in the Secretary of State's speech whether the £20 million completely covers all the new schemes or whether it covers only schemes which have been fully approved. I believe there is a backlag of schemes which have not been actually approved but are more or less on paper. Can we have an assurance that the £20 million gives a clear run for the next 10 years for everything which has been undertaken?

7.2 p.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: Following the concluding remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. Spence), I should like to know whether it is the intention under this Measure to ask for schemes to be re-submitted. I gather that something like only one-fifth of those schemes which have been submitted so far qualify for grants under the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act. I certainly welcome this Bill, as

one rather welcomes an overdue guest. We were told two years ago that further legislation was contemplated, and I think it is true to say that most local authorities have been rather worried by the time it has taken to obtain approval for the various schemes submitted under the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act. I agree that even supposing they had received approval, they might not have been able to get on any more quickly once they had started, but the start was undoubtedly delayed.
In his speech the Secretary of State said priority would be given for schemes where rural housing would otherwise be held up and, of course, that is very necessary, because we find that houses for agricultural workers, which are being erected in blocks of four in different parts of rural constituencies by local authorities, are at present being placed where water supplies exist and not where the real need exists. Had it been possible to supply the water first the needs of the community would have been better met.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) referred to the necessity for interim schemes. In my constituency there is a village which is on the main road where one side of the village has a water supply from a private source and the other side, which used to have a private source and where the source was given up, now does not have a water supply at all. Most of the houses—a line of cottages—are owned by the occupiers. Here an interim supply is clearly needed. I hope it will be pressed forward. I think the Under-Secretary of State knows the village to which I refer.
The Secretary of State went on to say that the first consideration was the grant which is being made in recognition of the inability of local authorities to face the expenditure on the supply of water at present rates. Following that, he said, the second consideration was the re-rating. Clearly re-rating is necessary, at least among other things, if not first, in order to achieve that uniformity which is a previous condition for the combination of local authorities in local water boards. That uniformity is clearly desirable.
It seems to me that there are two principal problems on which, in fact, the right hon. Gentleman touched. First, there are the burghs which for long have had a


supply but where, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the per capita supply now required is something like five times what it used to be, with the consequence that their present supply is inadequate. Side by side with that we have those burghs and adjoining, or nearby, landward areas which have no water at all. Where both these areas need extra supplies it is plainly desirable that they should act together. I hope the right hon. Gentleman at some stage, or possibly the Joint Under-Secretary of State in replying tonight, will give some indication of the policy which is to be followed where we have those two requirements side by side—the burgh which needs an increased supply and the landward area which needs a supply of some kind. Perhaps the Under-Secretary could say how exactly he intends to implement Sections 14, 15 and 16 of The Water (Scotland) Act, 1946. What is quite certain is that no further schemes either on water supply or sewerage will be undertaken unless this matter is made plain.
Following on that, the next question which arises is, what are rural areas? They have never been defined in an Act of Parliament. Would it not be better to put in this Act a definition of rural areas for this purpose? I gather that the custom of the Department of Health has been to treat as rural areas burghs or communities with a population of less than 2,000. Those with a population of over that figure have been treated as not eligible for a grant. Now that a community cannot become a burgh unless it has a population of 7,000, presumably it will be right to treat at any rate the smallest burghs as rural areas and to allow them a share in these grants.
A question referred to several times is that regarding the public water rate. The trouble is, of course, that the more water supplies to outlying areas are developed, the higher the public rate will rise and, in consequence, those who can never in any circumstances get a supply of water at all will be paying more and more for nothing at all, or at any rate for precious little. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said that, in effect, these people have a share in the general public services. That share, of course, is small and against it the rates are clearly going to rise higher and

higher. I hope this Bill will not be regarded as the last word in legislation in this regard. Sooner or later I think the principle of the overall sharing of the public water supply will have to be examined.
The question of the supply of water divides itself into two distinct parts—first, the provision of a mains supply and secondly, the distribution of that supply. I hope the Under-Secretary, in replying, either now or in the Committee stage, will have something to say about the means by which the Government intend to make that provision. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) in opening the Debate for this side had something to say on that. I hope it will be made quite clear how far local authorities may expect grants both for the provision of a main supply and for the distribution of that supply. These are the only remarks that I have to make except to suggest that possibly that division also can play its part in the future between burghs and land authorities where they are formed into a joint water authority.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Gilzean: I have listened to by far the greater part of the discussion that has taken place. So far as I understand it—and I want to say I welcome the Bill, for I think it is a good Bill and one calculated to be for Scotland's good—the desire is, in the main, to bring a better water supply to the areas outside the large burghs and cities. The large cities are more or less perfectly happy, or nearly so, where water is concerned. For a long period they have steadily built up a strong water position. I am bound to admit they have the great advantage of the high concentration of population and that makes it comparatively easy, because the main difficulty with regard to landward areas is the fact that there is such a distance between the people requiring a water supply.
At the same time, one can understand that it is very difficult with, say, 50,000 square miles and a population of over five million, with most of them completely concentrated on a middle belt, adequately to supply the outlying areas with water. I take it for granted that the great bulk of the £20 million being given by the State will be used for the


purpose of lending a helping hand, not to urban, but to rural areas.
A vein of discontent has run through the speeches of hon. Members on the other side of the House. They somehow thought that the Government were not doing what they ought to do in this connection. I quite appreciate all the problems, but at the same time we should remember what the cities and burghs, by their own efforts—and sometimes they have been exploited—have managed to do. One of the problems of the city I have the honour to represent is that in the past they had to make very considerable concessions in rural areas in order to get water from the person who owned the watershed, and who would agree to the water authority getting the watershed for water purposes only on condition that all the tenants on his land got it supplied free of charge. That is one of the things for which the compensation sums will have to be used in the future.
I hope those who have spoken so glibly about the inadequacy of the provision will appreciate exactly what is being done for them. Local authorities who have water in abundance have had to pay for it right down through the years, and very often they have done this when they were not really in a position to do it. In the district around Edinburgh there are burghs which are supplied with water by the Edinburgh Water Corporation at practically the same price as the Corporation provides its own water. What I want to emphasise particularly is that we should accept this scheme and make the best of it, understanding and appreciating that to cover a country like Scotland, where there is in many parts a sparse population, with all that is necessary to bring water to the doors of these isolated people, is a very big job indeed. I hope that the Government, in this effort, which will ultimately be further supplemented, will have the support of all in this House, so that the people of Scotland may be better supplied with water than ever before.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Those who have had the privilege of listening to our Debate and those who will read about it tomorrow, will be staggered by the enthusiasm which Scotsmen show for pure, unadulterated water; but to those parts of the country such as I represent, it is a matter of very great importance. It

was interesting to find the attachment to this Bill shown by hon. Members from the Clydeside district. They can boast, as they are entitled to boast, of their Loch Katrine scheme; they could have boasted of the whales that recently arrived up the water at Glasgow; but when the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) went further and began to advocate a national water authority, I began to be a little troubled. He quoted the National Electricity Authority and, I think, the national Gas Board as good ideas to be followed in regard to a national water authority. These things are done step by step, like Hitler's steps; and the hon. Member has only to go a couple of steps further, and he will be advocating a national housing authority, as indeed Members from the other side have done.

Mr. Scollan: It would not do any harm.

Mr. Stewart: If these steps are taken by the party opposite, they will rob the local authorities of every function which they have and destroy democracy. That is the scene which has been painted for us this afternoon in the speech of the hon. Member. There are those in Scotland who realise where hon. Members opposite are taking them, and many of us have warned them of this a long time ago.
The need for water in Scotland is understood by everyone. I have been pleading for further efforts in this direction all the 16 years I have been in the House. I want to say, lest anyone is under any misapprehension, that developments in Scottish water schemes have not started with this Government. They have been going on for a long time. They went on at some considerable pace in those years between the wars about which we have heard so many doleful tales from hon. Members opposite. Just before the war broke out, to give the House an example in proof of what I am saying, very considerable work was done in the county of Fife. The original water scheme was the biggest of its kind to be started. That was done under the aegis of the National Government, to which a great many of us gave our support. I congratulate the Government upon having gone a step further tonight, but as long as the people understand that it is a little step forward upon the


march begun a long time ago, then all is well.
The difficulty about the step forward that we are taking tonight is that people may misunderstand its meaning. I grant that, on the face of it, there seems to be a big jump in moving from £6,500,000 to £20 million, but, as an hon. Member has already pointed out, it all depends upon the pace of the development. The ££6,500,000 granted under a recent Act was intended, I thought then, and I believe everybody else also thought, to be expended within five or six years. That would have been a very substantial development in Scottish water schemes.

Mr. Scollan: Was that stated then?

Mr. Stewart: No, but that was the understanding. If the hon. Member was here, as I think he was, at that time he will recollect that that is what all Scottish Members expected. It would have been a substantial development, something of the order of £1 million a year. This sum of £20 million, according to the repeated testimony of the Secretary of State, will take 50 years to expend. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am prepared to be corrected, but I believe that the right hon. Gentleman made it clear in his introductory speech that it might take from 25 to 50 years.

Mr. Woodburn: No, I said from 15 to 20 years.

Mr. Stewart: All right, let us say from 15 to 20 years. Divide the £20 million over 16 or 20 years: What sort of pace is that, in this age? It cannot possibly be right today and it surely will not be defended by hon. Members opposite. The truth is that we have obtained from the Secretary of State for Scotland this afternoon an admission that we are going to be pottering along with this water scheme with even less drive than before and that, in fact, Scottish development will be slower in the next five, 10 or 15 years than it is now. Is that right, or is it not?

Mr. Scollan: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here when the Secretary of State for Scotland deliberately said to one hon. Gentleman who was speaking upon something like the same point, that the scarcity of labour during a period of full employment

obviously would slow down development. There was no excuse for spending only £1 million a year when we had nearly two million people unemployed and all the material necessary to enable us to go on with the scheme.

Mr. Stewart: It is very interesting to hear hon. Members opposite on the Socialist Benches preparing themselves for the day when the country will turn round and say that this scheme is really a fraud. What a fraud it is! In five years time little or nothing will have been done. Nobody would be more pleased than I to see the scheme succeed, because nobody has pleaded more consistently than I have for water schemes. No part of Scotland needs the benefit of those schemes more than my part of the country, yet I doubt whether anything very much will happen. I seriously invite the Joint Under-Secretary of State, who is a fair-minded man and knows Scottish conditions, to clarify this matter for us. Is it really the intention of the Government to proceed at a rate of about £1 million a year, for whatever reason that may be, or is it their intention, as I hope it is, to regard this matter as of first-class importance; and to drive it forward?

Mr. Willis: The hon. Member has been making a very interesting statement concerning expenditure. Where I am puzzled is this: He thought that £6 million spent over five or six years was very good.

Mr. Stewart: At that time.

Mr. Willis: Apparently he thinks that £20 million spent over 15 years is a fraud. Will the hon. Gentleman explain?

Mr. Stewart: Are we to understand that a rate of expenditure proposed in the middle of a war, is to be regarded by the Socialist Party as a perfectly satisfactory rate of expenditure after the war and in the middle of peace? If that is so. I am surprised.
I will put two points to the Secretary of State for Scotland quite seriously. They are points upon which I invite his assistance. We are now to have great national schemes. I speak with a certain amount of experience in this matter. Whenever there is a new regional scheme for a new source of water supply, we immediately run up against the problem of rates and water control. The hon. Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr.


Spence) was not raising an unimportant point when he put his question to the Joint Under-Secretary of State. It was a matter of extraordinary importance. What is the trouble in Fife now? The small areas are kicking against the new regional scheme because the rates are to go up by an enormous amount, some two, three, four or six times.

Mr. Watson: It has been stated in the Debate tonight that two district committees of the county council were responsible for all the big schemes in that county. Will the hon. Gentleman say what the ratepayers in the St. Andrew's and Cupar districts have contributed towards them?

Mr. Stewart: I cannot tell the hon. Member without notice. I can only put a broad case to the Government and to the House, and say that we cannot introduce a great regional scheme in any part of the country without running up against difficulties. The local authorities, whose water is to be swallowed up, as it were, by the main scheme, are concerned about their authority. The hon. Member knows that very well. In many parts of the country the local people are concerned about the rates they have to pay. I am all for the regional scheme. I am merely raising this matter in order to invite the Secretary of State for Scotland to help us in this respect. We shall need all the help we can get in Fife and in other counties in Scotland, in regard to this difficult problem. I hope that the Scottish Office will give us what help they can in due course.
The last point I want raise has been put to me by the Fife County Council. The Bill provides for water rate being levied on the gross annual value. I am wondering why that method has been chosen. Why have we departed from the old-established method of the rateable value? Has any serious objection arisen which has given rise to this idea of the gross annual value? Why should the Bill continue to carry on a complicated scheme of rating which one thought had been passed by? It is not understood why water rates should be determined by reference to the gross annual value, while all other rates are based upon the rateable value. This is a serious and not unimportant point. If the right hon. Gentleman is not able to deal with it tonight, I hope that the Scottish Office will be good enough to consider it.
Here is a Bill to which one wishes God-speed, but one hopes that it will be a bit speedier than seems likely. It will he a fraud if it is not speedier. That is the point. I have asked the Government to believe that, so far as I am concerned, I will regard it as a good Bill when I see in five years time, the bulk of the £20 million spent.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Gandar Dower: Briefly I wish to congratulate the Secretary of State for Scotland on the introduction of this Bill. I cannot fail to do so because in every speech I have made in my constituency I have stressed the importance of improved water supplies. I am anxious that this should not be a party matter and I feel rather sorry that the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) introduced a point that for a moment aroused party feelings. It could only be a matter of suspicion if untoward delay arose, and I do not believe the Government Front Bench have any other desire than to push forward with the utmost speed. They know very well that no expenditure, even in these hard times, is more worth while than expenditure on improving the country amenities. Water is essential to the rural districts of Scotland, as I well know. The outlying districts of Sutherland and Caithness need it beyond belief. I should not like to suggest anything that would delay the delivery of that water, and I hope to live to see it.
I wish to support the hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) in his point that where a satisfactory supply exists, the owner-occupier should not be forced to accept this supply. However, I do not read into the Bill that he will be obliged to do so. I also wish to support the excellent recommendation which the hon. and gallant Member for Perth put forward, that an overall survey be made the Scottish water system, because the best supply may not be found in one county or one area, and so the wider issue should be studied. However, the time factor is everything, and if such an overall survey were to delay the provision of water supplies, I should no longer support it.
I can assure the Government that on this side of the House, Scottish Members will do their utmost in Committee


to co-operate fully in improving the Bill, for that romantic little nursery rhyme—
Jack and Jill went up the hill
To fetch a pail of water.
has often an unpleasant sound in Scottish rural districts when, on a winter's night, it represents an actual reality.

7.32 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The Debate has ranged widely, and it is clear already that there will be a considerable amount of discussion in Committee. That is inevitable because not only is Great Britain as a whole, one of the pioneers in water engineering, but because certain citizens of Scotland took the step of the Loch Katrine scheme, which was one of the earliest, and most successful of the great feats of water engineering in Western Europe. In spite of what we may say in exchanging the usual compliments and controversies from either side of the House, it is true that the domestic water supplies of Great Britain, take it all over, are equal to, if not superior to those of any other country in the world, and that goes even for great countries such as the United States. All we want to do is to improve them still further, and it is with that object, I am certain, that the Secretary of State has brought forward this Bill.
The Debate, as I have said, has ranged widely from the familiar rhyme of Jack and Jill, which we have just heard, to the miracles of Moses, which were introduced by the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan). I think he got the wrong miracle. He referred to manna, but the miracle properly under discussion just now was the occasion when Moses struck the rock and obtained a water supply of excellent quality. I would remind the Secretary of State, however, that there was a great deal of grumbling before that water supply was obtained, and after it the controversies as to its origin were so great that it led to the untimely death of the supplier. I hope the precedent will not be followed.

Mr. Scollan: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not recognise that when I spoke of the manna from Heaven, I was referring to the £20 million.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I remember that in the case of the miracle of the manna and the quails or the water, it was rather the physical supplies than the financial resources available to which the Jews, even at that time, devoted their attention. It shows how much more important actual material is than finance. That we will come on to for a moment, for it is really the point around which controversy has ranged during the discussion of the Bill.
As far as I can see, the two main points were whether allocation of the charges was just and, secondly, what is what one might call the time schedule, in the expenditure of this present sum. Because, although £20 million sounds a considerable sum, £1 million a year sounds much smaller, and it sounds from the carefully guarded statement of the Secretary of State rather more like the smaller sum of £1 million per annum than the lump sum of £20 million which the House has had in mind mostly tonight.
To deal with the other subject first, the question of charge. On both sides of the House there has been some uneasiness lest those who have provided themselves with a supply of water will be charged again for a supply of water which is being made available to others. On that the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Watson) seemed to be arguing the same point as was made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan). In both cases the complaint was that either a community or an individual who had provided water, or would have to provide water because he would never find a public supply available, should also be charged for water in the general county rate.
I think the House remained unconvinced about that point, and more explanation will have to be given in Committee or, indeed, if the Under-Secretary can give it when winding up, I am sure the House will be grateful. After all, it is not merely the case of the man in the rural area, who has not a water supply who is being charged. Several people have said, "Why not place an obligation on the local authority to supply him?" I think the physical difficulties would prevent that. But that is not the only hard case. The other is the case of the man in the rural area who has already pro-


vided himself with a water supply at his own expense and who now is to be charged a water rate for something which he will never enjoy.

Mr. Woodburn: indicated dissent.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Oh, yes. Not the domestic water rate but the county water rate.

Mr. Woodburn: The public rate.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Yes, but an extra 2d. or 3d. in the £ is by no means a negligible burden, especially when one is paying for an article which one has already provided for oneself at one's own expense.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not confusing the domestic water, which the person provides for himself, with the public water rate which is provided for public purposes?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: No, not at all. There is the case of a man in the upland valleys of Roxburghshire, for instance, who has provided himself with a supply. I left such a water supply on Sunday, and I shall have a word to say to the Secretary of State about that in a moment. The man—and the man in this case is myself—has provided a water supply for a farm which will never enjoy public water supply from the county. It is true we shall not pay the domestic rate, but we shall pay the share of the general county rate.

Mr. Woodburn: Yes.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: As I say, we shall be paying, as various other people will be paying, for an article which they have already provided for themselves and for which they will never receive any benefit. The public benefits mentioned by the Bryce Walker Committee were fire fighting—no fire engine will use anything but local water when it comes up the glens of Scotland; sewer flushing—they will not use public water for that; street cleansing—they do not have any streets, so they will not be cleansed; street watering—street watering is done by the Almighty; public fountains—I cannot think of anybody up the glens or at the back of the bens demanding that a public fountain should be installed for his amusement, and still less that he would make a pilgrimage to, let us say, Trafalgar Square to enjoy the amenity of the public fountain playing there.

Mr. Willis: Does not the right hon. and gallant Member think that Edinburgh Castle should be floodlit?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Not by water.

Mr. Willis: Will the right hon. and gallant Member agree that all sorts of people demanded that the fountains in Princes Street Gardens should be playing?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I can give the assurance that the number of people who go from Roxburghshire to watch the fountains playing in the middle of Edinburgh is very small indeed. We should be perfectly prepared to pay an adequate sum each year, which would be very much less than a rate of 2d. in the £, as an admission fee for such a spectacle if we came down to Edinburgh to see such a thing. These are, I think, attempts rather to sidetrack a real problem which will emerge in several ways. My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir B. Neven-Spence) cited the case of the crofter as against that of the cottager. That problem certainly will be a fairly acute one. The crofter, who used to be the most hard up member of the community, is by no means in that position now.
Taking the question all over, as to whether some people should get water and not pay for it, and others pay for it and not get it, is a contrast on which the House—or, rather, the Scottish Grand Committee—will require to be reassured before it will pass the provisions of this Measure. Of course, the Government looks after its own and the Bill carefully lays out that its pet children, such as the Electricity Authority, should not be rated in any way for water. Gas, of course, is a sort of stepchild of the Government and will come in for the ordinary charges. That is one of the anomalies which the Government produces as fast as it tries to sweep away others. No Government can sweep all the anomalies away. It is hopeless to expect that it can.
An argument which was brought up specially by my hon. Friend the Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) and by several other hon. Members was the necessity of making sure that water schemes and sewage and drainage schemes should go forward together. When I was at the Scottish Office I found—and I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will


find the same—that there was much more enthusiasm about providing a water scheme than about providing a drainage scheme. It is an odd fact in human nature that our minds all turn more quickly to the provision of something than to the getting rid of its waste products. I trust that this point, which was made by several hon. Members on both sides of the House, will not be lost sight of.
The really difficult remaining question, which was pointed out in the very forceful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) and touched upon also by other hon. Members, is the actual rate of development. The gross sum of £20 million has been mentioned and many hon. Members have been rather lyrical about the achievements of the Secretary of State in getting grants from the flinty-hearted Treasury. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) became quite excited about it. The Treasury is never loath to give people post-dated cheques. The real difficulty is to get a cheque which can he immediately cashed.
As far as I understand, the money for the previous grant has not yet been expended, or even nearly expended. Therefore, we are not discussing any immediate relaxation or improvement in the rate of water development in Scotland because there is still in existence a considerable amount of money already voted by this House for this purpose. It has not been expended owing to the grip and control kept on the supply of the actual articles and materials——

Mr. Woodburn: Oh! what about labour?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: —and labour. I will say more about material presently, because I am not speaking without knowledge. In broad general figures, however, I understand that of the £6,375,000 voted by this House some £3 million has been promised by way of grants and about £4 million worth of schemes have been approved or commenced, which would mean that over £2 million still remains, not even promised and, of course, far from being expended.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): The figures of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman are wrong: three plus four equals seven.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am asking whether these two things go together, whether they may be added to each other: that is to say, if the grants promised are to be added to the grants approved. I am asking merely for information. At any rate, the grants promised are of the order of £3 million, and the amount approved or already commenced comes to £4 million. Perhaps the Under-Secretary can inform us where that £4 million stands; will it be expended in the course of one year, or two, three or four years, and what is his sort of time schedule for the expenditure of that money? In other words, when does he expect to have to draw upon the money to which the House is now being asked to agree. For the fund is still considerably in credit, and it has been found impossible for reason; not of finance, but of labour and material, to draw upon the funds which the House has already entrusted to the Government.
The Secretary of State seemed to query my remarks about the question of material. I was speaking only of a little water scheme, but all water schemes arrive at the same end: a tap in a house. I have in mind one which I left only two days ago. In May we obtained all the permits necessary to proceed with the scheme of relaying a set of pipes which I and my father before me had installed in the farmhouse, entirely at our own expense, to convey water, as it should be conveyed, into the farmhouse to provide running water and internal sanitation. In the course of time the pipes had began to fur up and the flow of water through the pipes became smaller. There is no difficulty whatever about labour, or about finance or permits. At any rate, there was no difficulty in May.
We asked then whether we could do the work and we were told, "Yes." We asked whether we could get the pipes, but were told, "No." We asked again for the pipes in June and received the same reply. We asked again in July, and again in August, whether there were any signs of the pipes but were told, "No." In September, beginning to get a little worried because of the long time the scheme was kept waiting and the coming approach of winter, we asked again and, once more, were told, "No." This procedure was repeated in October and again in November. There are no


signs yet whatever of the pipes to put into the trench from the spring to the farmhouse, although we have been at it since May, and have every form filled in and every permit secured.
Under those conditions £15 million seems, I db not say a fraud, but it does seem rather a bad joke. I hope that as a result of bringing it personally to the notice of the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary it will be possible for a few lengths of pipe to become available to proceed with the permits which we have had for so long.

Mr. Scollan: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for an hon. Member to take advantage of the Debate to advance his own personal claims?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): I do not think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was doing so.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: At the outset I declared my interest in every possible way and to rub it in and underscore it I will do so again. I say from personal, public and on general grounds there are many such examples, large and small, of schemes which could go on and which are held up, not from want of money, but from want of labour and materials. The Secretary of State said in a very guarded passage that as long as full employment continued he did not think it would be possible to proceed at a faster rate. That was rubbed in by the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan), who seemed to be in great voice tonight between the miracles of Moses, a desire to abolish the local authorities and his statement that the Secretary of State could not do more than a million pounds or a million and a half a year. He seemed to be as much an embarrassment to his friends as a delight to his adversaries.
These are two points on which we wish to be reassured. Will the Secretary of State keep an open mind on the question of charges? I am sure that from various parts of the House points will be raised on that question and on some aspects he will find it difficult to carry the whole Committee with him. Will he also give us some time schedule over which the unexpended portion of the £6 million odd voted by this House will be expended and some indication of the time when he will begin to draw on the new sums the House

are being asked to vote on tonight. If he can do those things and give a satisfactory answer he will greatly reassure the House and enable us to proceed to the further stages of the Bill with a good conscience and to join in the congratulations which have come from all sides of the House on what we believe is a genuine desire to improve the water conditions of Scotland and make another step forward in the amenities of our country.

7.52 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): We have had a very happy Debate, indeed almost too happy to reply to, as i find so little into which I can bite at this time of the day. However, there have been many points raised to which I will try to give a reply, although I think many were raised by hon. Members who will wish to have those matters further discussed during the Committee stage. The Debate has been marked by a most excellent maiden speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. MacPherson), who spoke very confidently and very competently. I know we shall hear a lot more from him in the future.
Going back to the beginning of this controversy as to why people in the remoter parts of, the country should pay the public water rate, I think it was started by the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) asking why it was that we had departed from the recommendations of the Bryce Walker Committee that the public water rate should be 25 per cent. of the total water rate and the domestic water rate should be 75 per cent. I thought the hon. and gallant Member gave the answer to the question by proceeding to ask why it was we asked the rural dweller to pay exactly the same water rate as the town dweller.
The reason we did not accept the recommendations of the Bryce Walker Committee to have the fixed proportions of 25 per cent. and 75 per cent. was that we realised that in urban areas a higher proportion of the water consumed was consumed for public purposes than in rural areas. In cities like Edinburgh or Glasgow, a higher proportion of the total water consumed will be consumed for street cleaning, fire fighting and public


health services of all kinds than is the case in the remoter parts of the country. We thought we ought to give some responsibility to individual local authorities to determine what proportion of the water rate would be set aside as the public water rate and what proportion as the domestic water rate. That is the reason for the proportions of 20 per cent. and 33⅓ per cent.
There has been a lot of discussion on the question of why a person living in a remote part of the country who does not have a piped water supply at present and will not have such a supply for a considerable time but who has to provide a supply at his own expense, should be required to pay the public water rate. Frankly, I cannot understand those who put forward the view that that person should not be asked to pay any water rate at all. If it would be right and proper for the person the right hon. and gallant Member described as living up a glen, who provided his own domestic water supply, to be excused from paying a public water rate, what justification could there be for imposing an education rate on him, if he has no children at school?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Surely the hon. Gentleman does not suggest that no one living in that farm is ever going to have any children or need for children to go to school?

Mr. Fraser: One does not know. Even though the farmer in that farm is going to have children, if he is the sort of farmer described by the right hon. and gallant Member, in all probability he would send his children to a school other than a local education authority school.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: No, he would not.

Mr. Fraser: Certainly he would and he would still be expected to pay the education rate. The answer has been given over and over again. Why should the blind ratepayer pay for the stair gas? Why should the burglar pay a police rate? In any case the farmers in Roxburghshire will occasionally go to market. They will then use streets which have been cleaned by a public water supply and will use some other places after they have visited the locals and have a water

supply there which will be much needed. Why on earth they should not pay the public water rate, I do not know. No case has been made out.

Mr. Snadden: Why do they not pay an electricity rate?

Mr. Fraser: We do not pay for electricity by means of a rate in the pound.

Mr. Snadden: They are being charged for something which they will never on any account receive.

Major Ramsay: They can never benefit.

Mr. Fraser: Oh, they can benefit. People in the rural areas will sometimes have a fire. A house or farm will go on fire and the fire brigade will be sent to put it out.

Major Ramsay: They do not get a fire service.

Sir B. Neven-Spence: What conceivable benefit will the inhabitants of Fair Isle or Foula ever get?

Mr. Fraser: If the inhabitants of Fair Isle and Foula are to pay for the services they get, do I take it that they are going to pay for all the services they get and that they will pay an education rate for the educational facilities they have in Fair Isle and Foula? What is the answer to that one?
The hon. and gallant Member for Pollok asked about shootings and fishings and whether they would be asked to pay the rate. I believe that later on it was pointed out that Clause 2 (2) provides that only those who get a water supply will in fact pay a domestic water rate. In respect of shootings and fishings for which they do not get a water supply from the water authority, they will not pay any domestic water rate. If they get a supply they will only pay on one-eighth of their valuation, as provided in the Clause of the Bill to which the hon. and gallant Member drew attention.

Commander Galbraith: Does "supply" mean the water actually delivered, or is the definition that which I gave?

Mr. Fraser: I was about to say that the hon. and gallant Gentleman drew our attention to the recommendation of the Bryce Walker Committee, who thought that we should levy the domestic water


rate upon all premises situated within one hundred yards of the water mains. We did not take their advice. We envisaged a water supply being taken to a crofting community and it skirting within a hundred yards of some fishings or shootings, with the result that those shootings or fishings would become liable to a domestic water rate because of the fact that the water supply was within a hundred yards. I think that the view taken by the Committee was that if a piped water supply was within a hundred yards of an ordinary house, it would not be very difficult for the owner or occupant of the house to get a water supply from the mains. We have taken the view that a domestic water rate should not be levied on any persons other than those who actually have a supply laid on by the water authority.
We have had considerable discussion about the time which it will take to complete the work, the time which it is to' take, as many hon. Members have said, to spend from £10 million to £20 million. The right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) called our attention to the difficulty he has had in getting a few pipes to complete a job for which he has all the licences, permits, etc., which were necessary. One of the reasons he is having so much difficulty in getting delivery of those pipes is that a lot of work is going on at the present time. Local authorities are carrying out works. Villages which have not up to now had a water supply are now getting one; new housing schemes are in progress. There is a considerable demand for all these materials. We have to be realistic in considering how long it is likely to take us to complete the water schemes which are covered by the £20 million. It was right for my right hon. Friend to sound a note of warning in his speech to the effect that no one should think that all this work would be done in two or three years' time. He estimated that it would take 15 or 20 years. If, however, circumstances should so change that the work can be completed in five or ten years no one will be more happy than my right hon. Friend.
In any event, as my right hon. Friend has just reminded me, he is not doing the work, nor do the Government do the work. It is done by the local authorities.

The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) talked about our making speed so very slowly, even more slowly than hitherto. In saying that he was not criticising the Government but the local authorities, because every county authority in Scotland now has a scheme in hand. If work is not proceeding, that is no criticism of the Government. Every authority has a scheme of some sort approved, if they can get the materials and labour to do the work.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The Government are responsible for that.

Mr. Fraser: In any event, all this discussion about the time it will take to complete the schemes arises out of the fact that a most far-seeing and good Government have decided to set £20 million to be spent upon rural water supplies in Scotland. One got the impression, when the hon. Member for East Fife was speaking, that this sort of thing had been going on for generations, that in the "bad days between the wars" which he said we on this side of the House so often talked about, this work was going on apace.

Mr. Stewart: So it was.

Mr. Fraser: I wonder if the hon. Member knows when the local authorities in Scotland were first given assistance from State funds for the provision of water supplies? The hon. Member has not the foggiest notion of when that began.

Mr. Stewart: Tell us.

Mr. Fraser: It began with the Act of 1934, which was only introduced after a serious drought in this country. That Act provided for expenditure from State funds of £137,500, and we are told that £20 million is a drop——

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: One of those sums was spent and the other has not been spent.

Mr. Fraser: I must correct the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, because the first one has not yet been spent. The Government of before the war were in such a hurry that by 1944 the £137,000 had still not been spent.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I do not wish constantly to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but when he gets himself into such a mess it is necessary for him to get out


of it. He has just told us—in fact, he has been pushing it down the neck of my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife—that all this work is done by the local authorities, that it was the local authorities that were getting on with it.

Mr. Fraser: Yes, but we are being told that we are responsible.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I will not interrupt again, but surely the hon. Member knows that there is an air-tight control of supplies now by the Government which did not exist before the war.

Mr. Fraser: If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will consult the 1944 Act he will find that it repealed the 1934 Act, except the parts of that Act which provided for the expenditure of money. That was because the £137,500 had not then been wholly spent. Some schemes were still proceeding.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I have been trying to get in a word for the last five minutes. Despite that great torrent of words from the hon. Gentleman, the fact is that during the years in which I was in this House—from 1933 onwards—water schemes were proceeding, and I do not consider that I would he much mistaken were I to say that they were proceeding at a faster rate than the present scheme is likely to do.

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Member can make his estimate and be proved wrong, if he wishes. The fact is that until now those who have held the responsibility of government—this does not apply to my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House but to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite—have never been able to accept the fact that a clean water supply is an essential to decent living wherever one resides in the country. Local authorities could not afford to instal a water supply in the rural areas. Indeed, our earlier Statute provided for the special districts about which my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) spoke. That Act allowed them to pick the plums within counties and have schemes for particular parts of a county. They could not go ahead and provide a scheme for the County of Lanarkshire or Fife or any other county.

Mr. Stewart: It could be done.

Mr. Fraser: It could not.

Mr. Stewart: It was done.

Mr. Fraser: It was not done. That is why in Fife and elsewhere one finds special water districts. That is because neither the local authorities nor the Government faced up to the public responsibility of providing a clean water supply for the people of this country, wherever they might live.

Mr. Stewart: This will not do. The hon. Gentleman is making a statement about the county which I represent which is untrue. I invite him to reconsider tomorrow what he has said and to make a proper, due apology.

Mr. Fraser: I think that the hon. Gentleman is telling me that they do not have special water districts.

Mr. Stewart: I did not say anything of the kind.

Mr. Fraser: That is what I said, that they do have, and he said——

Mr. Stewart: That is not fair. With great respect, the hon. Member is now running out of the statement. He is running away from what he said to the House. He indicated to the House that the County of Fife had, in fact, done nothing because they did not accept the principle that water was a public responsibility. I say that that is a lie and I ask for a withdrawal.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I order the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that word "lie," which he knows is unparliamentary.

Mr. Stewart: All right, I say it is a misstatement, and I ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.

Mr. Fraser: I did not make the statement. I said that neither the local authority nor the Government could face up to the responsibility in the past, and that is a statement of fact which cannot be controverted. It was accepted as a known fact in 1944, when Mr. Tom Johnston was able to come to this Box with a Bill that provided for the granting of £6,375,000 from State funds. It has been suggested today that this increase from £6,375,000 to £20 million has been necessitated by an increase in cost. Does anyone really believe that? I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been


with us all the time, but it will be within his recollection that several hon. Members have said that, in fact, this money was made necessary by increased costs But, in fact, even in 1944 it was not contemplated that the Government would be playing a part in getting water schemes thoroughout the whole of rural Scotland by assisting to the extent of £6,375,000. That was only to enable them to make a start. Since then we have had schemes submitted from counties all over Scotland. We have estimated what the total works will cost. We have a formula for assisting local authorities in providing rural water supplies and for reconstruction, but the total cost would be £20 million.
This Government really has appreciated the need for a clean, piped water supply being made available everywhere in the country. This Government has appreciated the responsibility to enable a clean water supply to be put in all over the country. We are inviting all the local authorities to submit schemes. If we do not accept and approve a scheme, it is because that scheme is unsatisfactory from a technician's point of view, or that for some reason or other it does not provide adequately, or provides for too much, or is making too big a demand on certain sources of water supply. It is no longer on account of costs. It is significant that even today we have had murmurs from hon. Members on the other side of the House that £20 million is a lot of money.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: The hon. Member having given me that leer, I should like to answer. I said we should watch expenditure or we should not have the money to spend on this most desirable object. That is a very important point. If we have not the money, the scheme will not go through.

Mr. Fraser: What I am saying is that the Government accepts this responsibility which is shared, of course, with the local authorities. It is their responsibility in the first place, but we have to help them. This amount of money represents the Government's contribution to providing a decent water supply and sewerage scheme throughout rural Scotland.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: The taxpayers have got to do it, not the Government.

Mr. Fraser: That is a most wonderful discovery which has been made by the hon. and gallant Member.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I am dad that the hon. Member realises it.

Mr. Fraser: Since the lion. Member for East Fife made such play with the time it is going to take to complete the work, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities said that it was worthy of the attention of the Government, etc., let us have a look at what it represents. The Government are going to spend £20 million, with the contribution of the local authorities. Let us estimate that at another £20 million. That is £40 million. Now the cost of a water supply is very largely the wages bill. What does £40 million represent in the wages bill? It represents the wages of 6,000 workers for 20 years estimating the wages at 3s. an hour working 44 hours a week. Or, if this work is completed in 10 years, it represents the wages of 12,000 workers working steadily all the time for 10 years.
It is when we begin to get this thing into that perspective that we appreciate what a tremendous task we have undertaken. But we are not deterred. We are encouraging local authorities to go ahead. The job will take a long time. My right hon. Friend has estimated 15 to 20 years. We have schemes beginning now that will not be completed for six or seven years. They have begun already, and the local authorities know that in some cases they will not have reservoirs completed inside five years. It is a tremendous undertaking, and we for our part will push the undertaking ahead as speedily as we possibly can.
The other matter which we have discussed at some considerable length is the exclusion of the small landholder from the payment of this domestic water rate. The question was asked, "Why?" I wonder whether hon. Members opposite take the view that the crofter should be rated equally with the rest of the ratepayers of the country for all the services that he gets? If they think that, they have had many opportunities, since they inherited the Government of this country from the Liberals early in this century, to correct the misdeeds of the Liberals in giving this exemption from rating to the crofters. But they have never taken


advantage of the opportunities given them.
As a matter of fact, we have done something that the Tories never had the courage to do. In the Water Act of 1946, we did provide that local authorities could make a reasonable charge for water supplies to the crofters, quite apart from the normal rating provisions. We provided that they may make a reasonable charge for water supply. Many hon. Gentlemen opposite have said this evening that that is not satisfactory, and that it ought to be put on a proper footing, and that every croft in the country ought to be valued, and that all these smallholders ought to have their houses valued, and that they ought to pay on the valuation like everybody else. But do they think that they ought to be valued and asked to pay a proper education rate?

Sir B. Neven-Spence: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to what I said, but I have never made any statement of that kind. What I said was that the smallholder ought to- pay a water rate on the existing system by which he was rated, that is all.

Mr. Fraser: I said that many hon. Members had discussed this matter and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir B. Neven-Spence) did, of course, as did the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Perth and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Argyll (Major McCallum). All of them discussed the altering of Clause 2, Subsection (5), to take away this exclusion or exemption of the smallholder.

Major McCallum: Where the smallholder gets water.

Mr. Fraser: Yes, but the 1946 Act is the answer. If we are not satisfied with the 1946 Act what we have to do is to make up our minds whether the crofter is going to continue to be de-rated as he is at the present time, or whether he is not. Hon. Gentlemen opposite think that he ought not to be de-rated.

Sir B. Neven-Spence: That suggestion never came from me.

Mr. Snadden: The point made was why should a smallholder be excluded from a domestic rate upon water which he does get, when a man in the remoter

areas has to pay a public rate for the water which he does not get. That was the point.

Mr. Fraser: Do not let us get too confused about this. We are asking either for more money from the crofters or for less money. As I understood the comments of the hon. Member for West Perth and the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll they took the view that the crofter ought to have his house valued and he ought to pay a rate on the valuation of the house in which he lives. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland says, "Oh, no, we just continue and if the man gets a supply of water he will pay the domestic water rate on his existing valuation." The position is that he is not valued at all for his house. If a man pays a rent of £1 a year for a plot of ground and then he builds a house, that house is an improvement which is not rated, so that the assessment at which he is rated is that of £1 a year. Then he is derated to the extent of seven-eighths, so he pays rates on 2s. 6d. a year. If he pays a water rate of 1s. in the £—well, hon. Members can calculate it for themselves. Is that what they are asking for? We should be told whether they are asking that the crofters should pay 1½ a year or whether they should pay a reasonable sum as provided for in the Act of 1946.

Major McCallum: Will not the water rate be a reasonable sum?

Mr. Fraser: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not followed me. He has not understood. I want to know whether he wants the crofter to be assessed in the same way as the farmer or whether he wants him to pay domestic water rate on the 2s. 6d. with which he pays his rates each year.

Major McCallum: He will pay on the gross valuation.

Mr. Fraser: That may be £1 a year: in many cases it is £3 a year. Hon. Members must think over this matter and between now and the Committee stage they must tell us what they want. During the Committee stage we shall discuss the proposals which they make.

Major McCallum: The hon. Member is shirking the issue. This issue is not posed by hon. Members of this House:


it is put by the Association of County Councils. The hon. Member will get representations from that Association and he should tell this tale to them.

Mr. Fraser: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must not try to slip out of it like that. Either he agrees or disagrees with the Association of County Councils.

Major McCallum: I agree with them.

Mr. Fraser: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman agrees with the Association he cannot get out of this question by saying, "We are not protesting. It is the County Councils who are protesting." He cannot get out of it like that. Either he agrees or he disagrees, and if he agrees and makes a speech, he cannot say, "I am not speaking: the Association of County Councils is speaking."
The position is that the provisions of this Bill were agreed with the local government associations, since when the Association of County Councils have told us that they would like to have the crofters brought within the terms of the Measure. They do not want the crofters to be excluded. They say that they do not want to have the crofters required to pay what the local authorities consider to be a reasonable sum for the water with which they supply them, but that the crofters ought to be assessed in the same way as the farmers and ought to pay a rate on the valuation of the houses in which they live. We told them on 27th September that we do not propose to adjust this Bill in the way they have suggested. Since then, as far as I know, we have not heard anything further from them.
If we accepted their advice, I cannot see how we could refrain from imposing upon them the normal education rate and the highways rate—indeed all the normal rates payable by ratepayers elsewhere. The hon. Members who support the Association of County Councils had better make up their minds where, if at all, they will draw the line.

Major McCallum: Will not the crofter have to pay the public water rate under this Bill? Of course he will. The Government are inflicting a public water rate on the crofters whether they get the water or not.

Mr. Fraser: The crofter will pay his public water rate on his 3s. or 4s. a

year, and I think that he will pay it with a smile.
The hon. Member for North Edinburgh drew my attention to the fact that we have treated shops and certain business premises rather particularly in this Bill, whereas we have left cinemas and theatres in the same category as houses and require them to pay the full domestic water rate. I had overlooked that position. I think that their position may not be very different from that of many shops and that the amount of water they consume in relation to their valuation must be small. We shall have to look into that matter. may be that there are other categories of buildings, particularly in the towns, which we shall have to consider in Committee.
The only other general point which has been discussed at any length is the question of compensation to which many of my hon. Friends have taken exception. The position is that local authorities have negotiated with private individuals for the taking of water supplies from lands owned by the individuals. When they made their arrangements they have made provision for giving a free supply of water, of a stated or unstated amount, in perpetuity. The local authorities themselves do not like this idea very much. They do not want to negotiate any more such schemes in the future. A long time ago they said that this appeared to be a matter which should be dealt with in this Measure. We agreed to deal with it and all we can do is to provide that there shall be no addition to the water supplied to such individuals or estates free of any charge.
I think that some hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House would regard compensation of that kind as confiscation. From 27th October, we are not going to give them anything additional to what they are getting at the present time, and we are not going to allow any arrangements of that kind to be made in schemes in future. Local authorities here and there may want to end the present arrangements, and require the consumers of water in any estate or estates in which there is such an arrangement to make their normal contribution to the rates. If they should do that, they will have to bring to an end the right which the person enjoys at the present time. We think, and I believe the local authorities think,


that it would be proper to consider making a payment to them for the right that is being taken away from them.
It can be argued that the amount of money which they would have got, had there not been this provision for free water in the arrangement, would have been more than, in fact, they did get. but, in any case, if any authority does not want to bring to an end the existing arrangement, this question of compensation is not going to arise at all but, if they want to bring it to an end, they will have to be willing to pay compensation, and it is to be hoped that such compensation paid will be a sum which is arrived at amicably. It may or it may not be; we cannot tell, but we think we are sound in principle in what we are proposing.

Mr. Willis: Will my hon. Friend allow me? I did not argue that, maybe, local authorities should make an agreement. What I was arguing was the approach. It seems to me that, if we are going to compensate for the value of a right, it is a very indefinite thing, and it may involve some fancy sort of figure. I should have thought that the better approach was made by making a payment for the hardship caused by the cessation of this right, which had been obtained by holding a pistol at the heads of the local authorities and saying, "You will have no water unless you give us this right."

Mr. Fraser: This is a matter that can be argued during the Committee stage of the Bill. I was merely trying to indicate that, so far as I know, the provisions of the Bill in that regard are as desired by the local authorities who are involved in this matter. We are not paying any State money in this direction, except in the case of local authorities where an equalisation grant has been paid by the State. None of the £20 million is involved in this. I understand that the local authorities are quite happy with the provisions of the Bill, but the matter can be further discussed at a later stage.
Two of my hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) and the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael), called attention to the position of an authority, such as that of Glasgow, which was supplying water to the residents of an adjoining authority, such as Rutherglen or Bearsden. The hon. Member for Tradeston said there was nothing

in the Bill to protect the Glasgow ratepayer, who might have to pay more for water supplied by his own authority than did the citizen of Rutherglen who was buying Glasgow water. I invite my hon. Friend to look at Clause 11 (3), where he will find provisions for adjustment if either Glasgow or Rutherglen should ask for some adjustment to be made because an unfair burden would be imposed on the authority.

Mr. Rankin: I think I tried to make the point clear that an adjustment could only be made in a downward direction.

Mr. Fraser: I used the term adjustment, and the Subsection referred to, provides for such adjustments being made. It is a matter that we can have a look at, and, if my hon. Friend is right, perhaps the Subsection itself would have to be adjusted in Committee.
I seem to have spoken at much too great length, and I am sorry if I have bored the House, but I have had many interruptions, though I think we have all had a good time. We are pleased, despite one or two reservations, some of them a little frigid, like those of the hon. Member for East Fife, that the House has welcomed the Bill. For my part, I am very proud to be a member of the Government which has brought forward this Bill, which, for the first time, acknowledges the right of citizens in any part of the country to a clean water supply.

Question, "That the Bill now be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — WATER (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee. (King's Recommendation signified.)

[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law with respect to rating and charging for water supplies in Scotland; to amend Part V of the Local Government Act, 1948, with respect to the ascertainment of the standard amounts there under in Scotland; to increase the financial assistance that may be given to local authorities in Scotland under the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1944; and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorize


the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenditure attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session increasing to twenty million pounds the aggregate amount which the Secretary of State may expend in making under section one, as read with section seven, of the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1944, contributions towards the expenses of local authorities for rural water supplies and sewerage; and
(b) any increase in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under Part II of the Local Government Act, 1948, attributable to the said Act of the present Session."—[Mr. Woodburn.]

8.37 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We now come to the stage at which we can continue the examination of the point which I tried to elicit from the Under-Secretary and on which he gave us some interesting figures. Clearly, however, there is more information to be obtained. The hon. Gentleman, in the first place, gave us the figure of the Government sum of £20 million, which, he said, would elicit from the local authorities another sum of £20 million. That seemed to me to indicate something more like a 50 per cent. grant than the figure of which I was previously thinking, The hon. Gentleman went on to translate that into terms of a wages bill.
I repeat again the points which I put to him on Second Reading. At what figure is the expenditure running at present? When will the existing £6,375,000 be expended; that is to say, at what time will we begin to draw upon the moneys which the House is now being asked to vote? I was most interested in the figures of the labour force which he gave. He said that the sums mentioned here would require for their expenditure 6,000 workers for 20 years or 12,000 workers for 10 years. Can he say what is the labour force engaged upon these schemes at present? Is it 6,000, 4,000, or 3,000? That would give us an indication, from the figure of the labour force employed, of the rate at which these schemes are running now.
I am merely taking the figures which the hon. Gentleman himself gave us, and they were most interesting; but I should be surprised to hear that there are 6,000 men employed on these schemes in Scotland. There may be, however, and I am merely asking him for information which obviously is of great interest to the Committee and which would give

us a very valuable indication of the rate of actual consumption of these grants at present. Those are really the main points in which the House was interested in discussing the Bill on Second Reading, and it would help us considerably if either the Under-Secretary or the right hon. Gentleman himself could give us more information on them.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: I think that in his speech the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) recognised quite clearly that, so far as going ahead with schemes is concerned—especially after his own experience—it is one of the most difficult things to calculate when a thing will be finished. We have the utmost difficulty to find moulders to make the moulds for the pipes required for housing schemes. There is no way by which we can improve the employment in the moulding industry. When we come to these pipes we come to a bottleneck, and the industry cannot expand very quickly. It is a matter of pure guesswork as to when these firms will be free to expand their production on any considerable scale. I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that it would be extremely difficult to separate this Debate from a Debate on the housing into which the water is going. When a housing Debate takes place, it will be no excuse to say that we are taking the pipes away for the water scheme.
Apart from that, the local authorities have not yet reached that point, because quite clearly any schemes of this sort require adequate surveying, and require the draughtsmen and all the technicians of the local authorities to spend a great deal of time on preparatory work before one sod is dug. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is well aware of these points, and I am quite sure appreciates them from his own experience. He asked how much was actually being spent at the moment. The local authorities have grants of £3 million. For the reasons stated, they have not yet taken these up. There are provisionally approved schemes to the extent of £17 million, in addition to the £3 million. Out of that there will be £8 million or £9 million of grants.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman also raised the question of the proportion of the grant. That varies from place to


place. In the Highlands it is as much as 85 per cent. for these water schemes, and Inverness-shire and other counties know perfectly well where they stand in this matter. They will go ahead as quickly as possible. As to the labour force available, the 6,000 people are not yet available. It was in order to convey to the House the problem of spending £20 million on this that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State gave the figures in terms of labour. But a great deal of this kind of labour force available in Scotland is at present already engaged in spending another £40 million in hydro-electric schemes, and so forth. Exactly the same kind of labour will be required for building these reservoirs. Therefore, it will be a question of the contractors switching over from such schemes to these great water schemes of the local authorities. We and the local authorities have no control over the contractors. All that the local authorities can do is to invite tenders, but the contractors and their men are so occupied just now that it will be a matter of considerable art to dovetail in this water scheme.
I can assure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that the local authorities are desperately anxious to proceed as quickly as possible, and that no time will be lost. I am not casting any reflection on anybody. I think that one or two of the speeches made this afternoon have been rather unfortunate in their reflection on the local authorities for taking so long to spend the money. It is not their fault at all. They have been handicapped by their technicians having been away at the war. I can assure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that the local authorities and the Government are working as hard as possible on this, and that, as time goes on, the spending of the money will proceed at an accelerated pace, as and when labour and material become available.

8.45 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I think it is necessary that these points should be cleared up when the Minister comes before the House and asks for a considerable sum—in this case £20 million—to be voted, and when he himself has stated that these schemes have not yet been begun, though they have been running for some time. We are now considering

a running expenditure, which was one of the points made, and the House was very glad to hear that these schemes were already in progress. I do not think the Committee is asking too much when it asks the Minister the order of the labour force engaged upon them at the present moment. It was the Under-Secretary's own formula that we were working on. He said that the expenditure of this money would require 6,000 workers a year for 20 years. We want to know at what rate it is running just now. Is it running at that rate, at half that rate, or at a quarter of it?

Mr. Scollan: What is the point?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The point, if I may say so to the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan), is that which the whole House has discussed at some length—whether this Vote is going to be employed immediately, in the near future, or only in the distant future. That was the point which was raised from all quarters of the House. As I understood the Secretary of State just now, he indicated that only a relatively small labour force is at present engaged because of the great calls on it for such schemes as the hydro-electric schemes and others. But this is merely saying in other language what hon. Members in other parts of the House have said, that the money we are now being asked to vote will not be brought into play for a very considerable time. That, as I understand it, is the Secretary of State's own point.

Mr. Scollan: When I said "What is the point?" I meant the long point, not the short point, of what the Under-Secretary of State said. The point that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is trying to make, if I understand him orrectly——

The Deputy-Chairman: Is the hon. Gentleman asking the right hon. and gallant Gentleman a question, or is he making a speech?

Mr. Scollan: I am asking him to clear up a speech. The point as I see it is that, if there is a shortage of labour today, is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman measuring the whole term of the scheme by the amount of labour available today, or is he admitting that periods are bound to come when 10 times the amount of labour available today will be available for the scheme?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: But this is the Financial Resolution. The Government come before the Committee tonight and ask us to vote £20 million. The Committee ask the Government to explain how they are going to use the money for which they are asking. Surely, that is the procedure of Parliament. It is in that way that Parliament has asserted its power throughout the centuries. These are the only occasions on which Parliament can speak to the Executive. When the Executive comes for money, Parliament says, "Tell us what you want the money for." I am asking the Minister what he wants the money for; and when he thinks he will need it. The Minister has explained that, at present, he will need very little of it because the labour which could be employed by the money is not available owing to the fact that it is engaged on other schemes. That was the point that was brought up by one or two Members, and with which the right hon. Gentleman dealt with some acerbity in his remarks. We return to the question of whether the right hon. Gentleman can say now, or at some later stage, something to give a clearer indication of the rate at which he is drawing on the credit already entrusted to him by the House, and the rate at which he expects in the near future to draw on the further credit with which he is now asking the Committee to entrust to him.

Mr. Woodburn: I apologise if I did not make the matter clear. The point is not that the local authorities want to draw cash from the bank out of this £20 million, but that no local authority in Scotland can proceed with an expensive water scheme without knowing that the State will help in the long run. The first thing the local authorities want to know is whether or not Parliament has granted the right to give them assistance, and they want to know that before embarking on any scheme. I am not pretending that these schemes are now in operation, although Lanarkshire and other local authorities have already got

started. Many of these schemes are in their embryo stage. The local authorities cannot move until they know that they are to have help from the State, and therefore all they can do up to now is the preparatory work. The preparatory work will not use a great deal of labour, but by the time the schemes are put forward and the civil engineers have their preparations ready, I have no doubt that the labour will be coming in and the schemes will go on at an accelerated rate.
It was pointed out that there were 15 years during which this money might be spent. It may be that £1 million a year will be spent at the beginning. It will start in a small way, but as the labour becomes available the work will go on at an accelerated rate. I am sorry that this tone, which seems to depreciate the value of the £20 million to the local authorities, has been introduced into the Debate. The local authorities appreciate this as being a great step forward -for their water schemes, and I hope that they will receive every encouragement to go ahead so that we can see a speedy completion of this work as soon as labour and materials are available.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We accept the view that the local authorities want to be sure credits are available, but the right hon. Gentleman will not minimise the importance of the request he is making. We do not propose to divide the Committee, but I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we want to know at what rate these reforms are likely to proceed. That is the point into which we who represent the citizens of Scotland have a right to inquire as the Bill proceeds. I am merely indicating to the right hon. Gentleman that Members in all parts of the House will, I am sure, wish to have further information on this point.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Chigwell, a copy of which Order was presented on 5th November, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Sevenoaks, a copy of which Order was presented on 5th November, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Skipton, a copy of which Order was presented on 5th November, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Southgate, a copy which Order was presented on 5th November, be approved."—[Mr. Younger.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]

Orders of the Day — ANTI-SOVIET PAMPHLET

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: I have to raise this evening a matter of the conduct of the Home Secretary, or rather the lack of any conduct on the part of the Home Secretary. It seems to me to raise a somewhat serious matter. Why he should have behaved in such a way is a little difficult to tell, but the grave matter is that he has in fact done so.
The matter involves the circulation of a particularly scurrilous pamphlet in the rather dangerous atmosphere of a miners' hostel of which some 90 per cent. of the population are what are now called European voluntary workers and who are, of course, the people who for so long were called displaced persons, or D.P.s, in Europe, who lived in the difficult conditions of D.P. camps in Europe, subject to a great deal of Fascist propaganda bringing them to a not very normal state of mind where resorts to violence are quite natural to them.
First, perhaps, I should explain the document itself, which I called a scurrilous pamphlet. It would have been interesting to the Home Secretary—if he had had the courage to come here and answer for his own misdeeds—and it will be of interest to the Under-Secretary because, as we shall see, the Home Secretary has ostentatiously refused ever to obtain any information about the document at all; so that my information will be news to the Under-Secretary as well as to the House. It is a printed magazine of about 28 pages, of which some 22 are covered with printed matter, including blocks. It is moderately expensively got up; it is in four colours and has 46 blocks. It is printed in English, but not the English of an Englishman.
The inference which would be drawn by most people—and I think reluctantly and ultimately the Home Secretary is beginning to draw it for himself—through the fact that it was produced in substantial numbers and intended for wide circulation, and the fact that it was printed more or less in English, is that it was intended for circulation amongst English-speaking people who, of course, inhabit many parts of the world; but for the purpose of this pamphlet it was probably mainly intended for Germany—the Western zone of Germany—and also, no doubt, for this country.
One could draw the conclusion that it was probably printed either in Germany or Austria, which makes it pretty dangerous in the awkward and explosive atmosphere of those countries. It contains no printer's imprint so one cannot be sure where it was printed and that fact, of course, in itself constitutes a criminal offence, because the law relating to printing is designed so that undesirable documents can at least be traced to their source. It gives no date, but it is obvious from the contents that it is certainly as recent as the spring of this year. I think its circulation was criminal not only for that reason but because it was pretty well bound to lead to breaches of the peace, as it has already led indirectly to threats of murder, and in another case, in a way, has led to a violent assault upon young British workers by European voluntary workers.
As a lawyer I feel pretty sure that the document is a criminal libel. I want to tell the House its general line, although


it has a good many lines. I shall mention the least important, and least obvious, line first. Among other things it is a savage abuse of the British and American authorities for not immediately taking the three Baltic Republics away from the Soviet Union. I suppose it could be done quite simply by a major war, unless, of course, we lost that war.
It also attacks the British and American authorities for having, according to the writer of the document, forcibly repatriated from Europe a large number of displaced persons to the U.S.S.R. in order, as it makes quite plain, to have them murdered there. This forcible repatriation is also accompanied by threats to those people who do not wish to accept repatriation to the U.S.S.R. that they will receive from the British and American authorities in Germany what is described in the pamphlet as "an uncertain fate." I am not suggesting for one moment that the British or Americans would be guilty of anything of the sort, but I am only revealing what is in this pamphlet, with which the Home Secretary reuses to deal in any shape or form.
It goes on to accuse the British and Americans with having done this for this purpose—if these people are not repatriated in order to be murdered but are released in Europe, they will then get to some free country or another perhaps in Europe and do anti-Communist propaganda. The writer is so far from actuality that he thinks the British and the Americans would never permit any anti-Communist propaganda. There is also a good deal of abuse thrown on the British and Americans and Mr. Henry Wallace is accused of dirty malevolence. I am not taking these in order of importance but in order of examples.
The pamphlet accuses the Swedes and the Finns of having sent Latvians back, according to the writer, to the Soviet Union to be murdered and he also abuses the Danes not for having done it but because the writer thinks they may do it and, therefore, they ought to be abused. The next sample is that officials of U.N.R.R.A. and of the International Relief Organization and the officials of the United States in Germany are accused of taking bribes wholesale, mostly for the purpose of infiltrating Communist agents into the displaced

persons camps in order to prevent genuine Baltic displaced persons being released, so that it will be easier to have more of them sent back to the Soviet Union to be murdered. There is even some abuse of the Nazis. This pamphlet has got nice wide samples of abuse. Almost anybody who likes low-grade abuse may find someone he does not like being abused.
This is a pretty serious document. Of course, above all, as hon. Members will have guessed, the main purpose or the purport of the document is abuse of the Soviet Union. It says that the Soviet Union is still murdering by the thousand citizens of the various Baltic Republics. It is also murdering people all over Europe and indulging in torture, mutilation and sadistic orgies. It supports, if support is the right word, these outrages by a series of quite revolting pictures of mutilated corpses. There is no actual explanation of where the writer, who is printing this document illegally in Germany where the British ought to be stopping him——

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): Or the Russians or the Americans.

Mr. Pritt: Or the Russians or the Americans, but I understood from the general line of the document that it was not being produced in the Eastern zone but in the Western zone. I quite agree that I should have said the British and the American, but the close association between those two bodies led me to call them one. I will be more careful in the future and just call them American.
There is no explanation where they got these pictures from, but I have seen very similar pictures in the past when they were used for exposure of Nazi atrocities. It seems pretty plain that they got hold of the documents exposing Nazi atrocities and turned them round, using them to describe alleged atrocities by the Russians against various Latvians. There are pictures, for example, of prison cells where people can neither sit nor stand, and cells where you can be steamed alive, and things of that kind. If one took the document seriously and looked at the pictures to see how old the cells were, one might reasonably conclude that the cells were built in the Baltic Provinces long before the Soviet Russians were ever there.
The general effect of the document would be to whip up in its readers, especially in not very discriminating readers, a seething hatred against the Soviet Union or, what might worry the Americans a little more—I use the word "Americans" collectively—to whip up disgust against Great Britain and the United States, and particularly against their Governments, as callous and cowardly accomplices of brutal and murderous acts committed by the Soviet Union. That is the document.
How and where did the particular document that is in my possession turn up? I have given a hint of the answer, but I must now state it a little more fully. There is a miners hostel in Lowton near Manchester, called "Scotia South." This point happens to arise upon a Scottish evening, but that is not my fault. It is in Lancashire. Therefore, the Home Secretary and not the Secretary of State for Scotland ought to be answering for it. I think most of the people in that hostel work at the Astley Green Pit. It was at the hostel that most of the incidents arose. It has about 450 European voluntary workers, and 50 or 60 young Englishmen who have volunteered for work in the mines. They are probably trainees.
It must be rather an explosive atmosphere and I should think it ought to be worth a little care from the Home Secretary, who has imported—that is the right phrase but I am not considering the policy at all—these European voluntary workers and has set them to work side by side with Englishmen. Concerned in this matter are two or three of the European voluntary workers and two young English lads, quite young, I think under 20. One of them is a Catholic. That fact does not come in directly except that it is regarded by most people as proof that he is not a Communist. The other is a Communist.
One of the E.V.Ws.—to use the kind of jargon current in these days—gave one of these pamphlets to one of these lads, I think to the Catholic. The Catholic lad handed it to the other. At some stage, I think it was later in the course of the story, the E.V.W. told the boys that they could have more copies if they wanted them, and that he got them from Germany. In passing one might say that if this sort of thing is coming from

Germany to the E.V.Ws. I imagine that the Home Office, with the assistance of the Post Office, will take some interest in what is coming over, and ought to know something about it. One of the lads, I think it was the Communist lad, took a serious view of the document. He is only 19. He did not take any action himself but he took the document home to his father. On his father's advice he sent the document first to a newspaper. He got it back from the newspaper and he afterwards sent it to me.
The document had not been gone very long before the E.V.Ws., I suppose scenting trouble, demanded the document back. They threatened, quite simply, that they would murder the boy if the document did not come back. The boy wisely reported the matter to his trade union branch and to the manager of the pit, but not to the manager of the hostel, because I think the threat was uttered at the pit. The boy reported it to the pit management who said, "You had better have the police to this." A police inspector came to investigate the matter. He immediately asked the boy what were his politics. It is an odd question to ask, or it would be if we did not know that it is a common police question. The boy replied that he was a Communist. The police inspector immediately took up the rather chilly attitude that the police are apt to take to the Communists, and told the boy that it was all his fault, that he ought to return the document to its owners and, indeed, threatened to have him prosecuted for larceny if he did not do so.
The police inspector, copying in advance the Home Secretary, did not take the least interest in the document itself. He did not care two hoots what was in the document and, so far as I can tell, there has never been at any stage any authority who wanted to know what was in the document, or who has given any kind of warning to the European voluntary workers about it. If one may test it by turning it around a bit, one wonders what would have been the reaction of the police or of the Home Secretary if, instead of accusing the Soviet of wholesale murder and the Americans and British of merely being callously indifferent to it, it had accused the Americans and the British of wholesale murder.
However, as far as we have got, that is what the police inspector did, and the boy's father then took what was the wise and ought to have been the useful course of writing to the Chief Constable of Lancashire, who replied after a time that he had made full inquiries. There was no actual evidence of what inquiries but certainly they included his own police and it is possible, though not clear, that he may have asked the European voluntary workers. Certainly he did not ask any of the English volunteers, and certainly he did not ask any of the English miners. This is what he wrote to the father of the boy:
The owner"—
That is the gentleman who imported the illegal document—
The owner is anxious for the return of his property.
Well, no one can say that the Chief Constable is not loyal in the defence of property, however criminal it may be.
The owner is anxious for the return of his property, and it appears that the action of your son in disposing of the document is the cause of the trouble.
The Chief Constable had been told something about the contents of the document, and something about the threats of murder, and he had also been told that the boy had had to be sent off ill for some time by his doctor because the boy was very worried by being threatened with murder. Some people like being murdered and some do not. I was then consulted and, on 25th August, I wrote to the Home Secretary. I gave him a full description of the document. I said:
It is 'Balt' propaganda, primarily Latvian, and is peculiarly scurrilous, violent and unscrupulous anti-Soviet propaganda—some of the pictures are revolting—but it has a good few slashes at the Americans and British, at Sweden and at organisations such as U.N.R.R.A. and I.R.O. which it accuses of taking bribes.
I think most Home Secretaries—I have had quite a few to deal with in my time—on receiving that allegation from a Member of Parliament would at any rate want to look at the document. I went on to tell him that:
It must presumably be circulating on a substantial scale and it is obviously likely to lead to breaches of the peace if it circulates in places where Balts and English workers mingle. It should surely not be allowed to circulate at all among the D.P.'s, over whom the Home Office presumably

exercises some parental supervision; and its circulation does constitute at any rate one definite criminal offence, owing to the absence of the printers' imprint.
It is only fair to say that I did not in terms describe it as a criminal libel. I went on:
It seems to me that the matter should be properly investigated; that the circulation of such propaganda should be definitely stopped; and that the matter of prosecution should be considered.
I assume that you have means of knowing what goes on among E.V.W.'s, and that you will be able to see for yourself a copy of the pamphlet; but if you wish one of your officials to see the one I have"—
Then I made an offer to show it to an official at any time. I also drew his attention to the fact that it was said to be sent over from Germany and I added:
From what the Foreign Office tell me officially as to the number of books, etc., that they prohibit from circulation there, I expect and hope that you will feel that you should get as much information as you can as to where the document is alleged to have come from in Germany and pass it to the Foreign Office so that they may put a stop to it there. (I can well imagine that there is a large-scale production of such stuff in Germany, and that it may be very dangerous.)
The Home Secretary remained perfectly calm. For a month he attended to all the business of his office except this. I received absolutely nothing of any description for one month—[An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."]—with the approval, at any rate, of one hon. Gentleman opposite, although he does not know what the Home Secretary wrote. Then the Home Secretary, after summarising my letter to him, said:
I have not seen a copy of this brochure and I have no information about the extent of its circulation in this country. I have consulted the Chief Constable of Lancashire, but it appears that the only information he has is that one copy of the publication was lent to a Mr. Hope, who said that he had passed it on to the Daily Worker.' The police themselves have not seen the publication, but apart from the exchange indicated in this particular case the police have no evidence—
and, as far as we can tell, have taken jolly good care not to get any evidence—
of the circulation of such alleged propaganda at the Scotia South Hostel or other similar places.
Let us analyse what the right hon. Gentleman, who sends the Under-Secretary here to protect him, was actually doing in that letter. He has not seen the


document. He does not even ask to see it. My offer to show it to him is ignored. He says nothing about prosecution, although he has been told of two definite criminal offences and, if I may prepare for a really prize piece of humour, in none of his later letters does he suggest that he is not a person who ought to take at any rate an indirect interest in such things as prosecutions. He says that he has no information, but he is protecting himself from it. All he has done is to consult the utterly indifferent police, and neither he nor they have made any further inquiries and, as far as we can tell, they do not intend to do so. It does not, apparently, even dawn on him that a printed document is likely to be circulated extensively, or at any rate is printed with that object, and he does not even think of fulfilling my suggestion that he should communicate with the Foreign Office because they might, after all, want to know that such things were not done, or should not be done, in Germany.
Let us think what he would have done if this document had been wholly anti-British or anti-American propaganda instead of being just mainly propaganda against the Left Wing. There is no sign in his correspondence that he has caused any warning to be given to the E.V.W.s. At this stage I can tell the House that one indirect result is that quite recently near that hostel another young lad who is known to be a member of the Communist Party was set upon and savagely beaten up by a couple of E.V.W.s. On his complaining to the police they again took their cues from the Chief Constable of the county.
The Home Secretary having written that letter to me on the 25th August and having taken no action of any description I, owing to absence abroad and to one or two other things, was not able to write to him until 11th October, when I wrote to him and recited what had happened.

Mr. Follick: How can the hon. and learned Member recite if he writes?

Mr. Pritt: I am asked by an hon. Gentleman who ought to know better how I can recite if I write? "Recite" is an English word which means, among other things, to restate facts in an orderly manner. The hon. Member uses so

many languages that he ought to know English. However, instead of using a word that puzzles our linguists I will read out some of what I said:
I took it for granted that you—
the Home Secretary—
would infer (1) from the fact that it was printed—and printed expensively …—that it was intended to circulate in substantial numbers, and (2) from the fact that it was in English that it was intended to circulate in English-speaking or reading areas … in which you are Home Secretary, and the British Zone of Germany, for which your colleague the Foreign Secretary is largely responsible.
I suggested that if it circulated in places where Balts and English workers met it might cause breaches of the peace and I referred to one. I think most responsible people would infer from what I wrote that I suggested its circulation was a serious criminal libel. I did not ask him to take my word for this, but offered to show him the document. Then I added the suggestion about Germany and the Foreign Office. I asked:
What have you done? I gather from your letter that you … have not asked for a sight of the document, although neither you nor the police have ever seen it. Unless the vague reference to 'the police' in your letter refers to some wider inquiries, you have made no inquiries and taken no action beyond asking the Chief Constable of Lancashire, about whose action, or inaction, I have already complained, for information. … It is plain that he is as inactive … as you seem to be. You have neither informed the Foreign Office nor asked them for information, nor taken steps to warn any of the Baits concerned as to their conduct—indeed, you could not, could you, since you do not know … the contents of the document … circulated and not merely circulated but offered to be supplied in large numbers. You have not communicated direct with the Director of Public Prosecutions … any of the offences which appear to me to be involved. In substance, you have done nothing.
I said I could not leave it where it was and that I felt that I ought to say that his conduct in this matter was something of which no Home Secretary should be guilty and I asked him to tell me within a week whether he proposed to take any further action.
That was the letter in October and, having regard to what he decided to do, it ought not to have taken more than an hour to decide to do it. But, in fact, from 11th October I got nothing beyond the usual courteous acknowledgement from the secretary until 20th October, when I wrote calling attention to my letter and


asking for a reply. Finally, on 25th October I got this:
I have no evidence"—
Of course he has not, he ensures himself against it—
… of the existence, or circulation, of any other copies of the pamphlet, or the commission of any criminal offence which might call for action on my part. If you have any evidence, the right course would be for you to submit it to the authorities responsible for enforcing the law.
Most people, when they have a matter that involves criminal offences, write to the Home Secretary. Those of us who are lawyers know that it might be the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney-General who takes up the matter, but we send to the Home Secretary because he will have other things to look into as well. In the past most of us have received replies that the Home Secretary has sent the matter on. Here he says that the right course is for me to send to the authorities. It reminds me of the time when someone stole a bicycle outside by Chambers in the Temple and I went to the policeman on duty and told him about it. He said, "If I was you, Sir. I should report it to the police."
If I stopped at that stage in the letter, it would not be quite fair to the Home Secretary, because, at last, two months after he was given information about the matter, he is actually doing something. He says:
As you suggest the document came from Germany and may be circulating there, I am bringing this correspondence to the notice of the Foreign Secretary.
In future, when I write to this Home Secretary about anything which may involve a criminal offence, I shall send copies to the Attorney-General as well. Still the Home Secretary does not ask to see the document himself. It may be that the Foreign Office have lots of copies of it. The Foreign Office have to govern Germany and many of these documents might come their way. This rather dreary story is near its end. I wrote back:
I note what you say about the right course for Inc to have taken—
This was the course of informing the other authorities.
I have to confess that in reporting this matter to you I considered that that was the exact course I was taking, because I had hitherto regarded you as part of

the authorities responsible for enforcing the law.
It really does not require much comment. There is the story. Here is a Home Secretary who, if someone wanted to organise a Fascist meeting in London, would send several hundred policemen to see that that man got through with his task. Yet, when confronted with the serious matter of this pamphlet, which has already led to one threat of murder and indirectly to another violent assault, and which may all the time be in extensive distribution in Germany and causing any amount of trouble, the Home Secretary does absolutely nothing. True to his masterly inactivity, he does not even come here to defend himself.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. Blackburn: I wish to draw the attention of the House to the extraordinary effrontery of the proposition which has been put before us tonight—nothing more or less than that we should establish a political censorship here in Britain, and that above all we should not allow anti-Soviet literature of any kind to be distributed. That is the substance of what we have heard tonight. There was a slight lacuna, a slight gap, in the history as given to us by the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt). He referred to the fact that he was out of the country in September. He did not refer to what he said—it is quite relevant to this matter—nor to where he was. It happens that he was the guest of the Bulgarian Government, that is, the Government which was responsible for the judicial murder of Petkov. The Communist newspaper "Fatherland Front," on 16th September, reported the hon. and learned Gentleman as saying:
I am a member of Mr. Bevin's party.

Mr. Pritt: I was not aware of that fact, and it certainly is not true. I would not say it because, although I would have been very proud to remain a member of the Labour Party, I would never have described it with any pride as" Mr. Bevin's party."

Mr. Blackburn: Of course, I must accept that. I think that the House will be gratified by the phenomenon of the hon. and learned Member at last contradicting the Communists.
What on earth has this matter to do with the Home Office? The hon. and


learned Member, like any other citizen of this country, is entitled to institute a private prosecution in respect of this matter.

Mr. Pritt: The hon. Member's law is about 10 years out of date That is not the case today.

Mr. Blackburn: May I correct that statement and say that the hon. and learned Member knows that in substance it is true—he has the right to go to the police and the right to place the whole of the facts before the Director of Public Prosecutions, and if anything approaching a prima facie case is made out, a prosecution can be brought, and the magistrates can decide whether or not proceedings should have been instituted.
Surely the last person in the world to decide whether proceedings should be brought is the Home Secretary. Surely we are proud of the fact that justice in this country is independent of any kind of political influence whatever. We do not want a police State in this country, even though some hon. Members in this House may do so. It seems staggering that when we have fought a war, the sole purpose of which was to preserve freedom and to prevent any kind of political influence from being brought to bear upon British justice, we should have had to listen to the kind of speech which we have heard tonight, the gravamen of which was that it ought to be regarded as being as much an offence against Britain as against Russia if anyone dares to say a word against the Communists.

9.29 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): When the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) began his remarks this evening, he said—I am not sure whether I quote him verbatim—that a great deal of what he had to say would be news to me. So indeed it was. He later explained that for certain reasons, some of which he gave, the Home Secretary has not up to date seen a copy of the pamphlet to which he referred. That is a point with which I will deal later. It was not only the nature of the pamphlet, but a good many of the other items of information that were given to the House by the hon. and learned Member which were quite new to

me. I am bound to say—and I do not think that he will take this in any offensive sense—that as I have had no previous notice of many of them, and I will tell him which as I go along, I cannot be expected here and now to accept them as being facts.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also appeared to complain that my right hon. Friend was not here to answer tonight and even went so far as to say that my right hon. Friend had not the courage to come here and defend himself. All I can say is that if the hon. and learned Member really believes that, he somewhat overestimates the awe in which my right hon. Friend holds him.
I am not going to express any opinion, let alone a legal opinion, about the merits of this particular document, partly because I have not actually seen it, and in any case because I do not think this would be a suitable time to open a general Debate upon the rights and merits of what has happened in the Baltic States and what is being believed, rightly or wrongly, by displaced persons who are now voluntarily working in this country. I think the best thing to do is to state as shortly as I can the whole of the story in order of time as it was seen from the Home Office.
The first thing we heard of it was the letter to which the hon. and learned Member referred on 25th August telling us in general terms about the pamphlet. We rather naturally made some inquiries, starting at the point he gave us, namely, the Lancashire police. We discovered an incident at the Astley Green colliery a month previously, on 27th July: the management had apparently asked the police to come along because of a complaint made to them by a British worker to whom my hon. and learned Friend has referred. He had apparently said that he feared that there would be some violence done him. When the police actually got there and saw this young man, he said at first that he had not actually feared anything being done to him at the colliery, but that he was afraid of what might happen at the hostel later in the day.
The police made what inquiries they could among the foreign workers who were there, trying to find out who had been involved. They did find that the whole of the trouble such as there had


been—and it had not been much, according to my information it had Only been a few words—related to this pamphlet, "We accuse." One foreign worker said that he had received this from Germany and had lent it to an Englishman, no doubt the first of the two to whom my hon. and learned Friend referred. That worker had in turn passed it on to the second worker, whose name has already been used in this Debate, Mr. Hope. Hope, on being interviewed by the police, said that he had sent it to the "Daily Worker." He also was told that the owner, if I may so term him, the person who had originally received it in this country, wanted it back and that he would try to get it back.
So far I think my information corresponds with that of my hon. and learned Friend; but he went on to say two things which were certainly not known to me. He talked about political questioning and threats made by the police to this English worker and a possible prosecution for larceny. I heard nothing of that.

Mr. Pritt: Really, it would be in the letter if the hon. Member had read the file.

Mr. Younger: I have read this file with very great care and I really do not think there was any reference to prosecution for larceny. If there was, I apologise to the House, but it is certainly my impression that there was not. I should like to say, in passing, that I am not quite sure upon what foundation my hon. and learned Friend is relying for all the details of this incident, because although he was aware—and told the Home Secretary—that the Lancashire police had been involved and had made inquiries, my information is that, at any rate at that time, the Lancashire police had not had any contact with the hon. and learned Member. He presumably got all this information at second hand, or perhaps even third hand, from the father. At any rate, I am not inclined to believe that it is in any sense first-hand information.

Mr. Pritt: Every word I have said about the Chief Constable of Lancashire is derived from the original letter from the Chief Constable to the lad's father, which I have in my possession if the hon. Gentleman wants to see it.

Mr. Younger: Perhaps that, among other evidence—if the hon. and learned Member wishes to supply evidence at the end of the Debate—might be shown to me. But I have not seen it, and I am certainly not aware of it. The police went to the hostel because that was where Hope said he expected trouble. They found no sign of trouble there, so they spoke to Hope again and asked why he anticipated trouble and whether he had been threatened. This is where I think my information does not at all correspond with what my hon. and learned Friend has said. I am informed that Hope said to the police that he had not been threatened and that he had overdone it. Those are the words—"overdone it."

Mr. Pritt: I can procure affidavits from two people who heard the conversation to say that that is a deliberate lie on the part of the police.

Mr. Younger: If we are to have affidavits, we are getting a little nearer having evidence. That is something which I myself should welcome. Those inquiries also failed to show any trace of any other pamphlet at that camp. My hon. and learned Friend said that no inquiries were made of any E.V.Ws. That is not my information. Other E.V.Ws. were questioned and no trace was found of any pamphlet other than the one—presumably there is only one in existence and known to be in this country—the one my hon. and learned Friend has. There is no evidence that it had any further circulation other than to those three individuals who were known to have seen it. No copy was available there either to the police or to my right hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend then informed the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith of the negative results of the inquiry which he had made.

Mr. Pritt: The hon. Gentleman really must not say that no copy was available to the Home Secretary when the Home Secretary had in his possession for weeks before that a letter from me offering expressly to show it.

Mr. Younger: I did not mean to imply that we were not aware at that time of the copy which my hon. and learned Friend had. What I meant to say was that, as a result of the inquiry, there was no copy available to be seen either by


the police or by the Home Secretary. I will come in a moment to the question of our seeing the actual copy which the hon. and learned Member has.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith has seen fit to attack the Chief Constable of Lancashire and the police under his command. May I ask the Under-Secretary of State if, so far as the Home Office are aware, the Chief Constable and his officers have conducted themselves with perfect propriety in this matter.

Mr. Platts-Mills: We can judge that when we hear the facts.

Mr. Younger: I am glad to take this opportunity of associating myself with the view expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Stockport (Wing-Commander Hulbert). I have no reason whatever to believe that the police have acted in any way improperly or have been in any way negligent in their duties, or that they could have made any further useful inquiries. From my own knowledge of the Chief Constable of Lancashire, which is by no means a brief one, I should be very surprised if the inquiries of the police were not carried out with efficiency.
That is the story and, subject to the few points to which I have called attention, the facts correspond approximately in both our versions. If we are to view this merely as a matter of a propaganda leaflet, possibly undesirable and objectionable, but merely as propaganda and not as a matter of a criminal offence, then I think the House will agree that it is indeed a very trivial matter. We know of only one single copy in this country at the moment and that is the one possessed by my hon. and learned Friend. So far as we are aware, there has been no organised distribution. My hon. and learned Friend referred to the statement by this foreign worker that they could have plenty more copies if they wanted. That was not information which we were able to elicit, although it was mentioned in my hon. and learned Friend's second letter to the Home Secretary, but not in the first. Nobody offered to supply a large number of copies, there was, in fact, no actual

trouble at that time in the camp as the result of the production of this pamphlet. The statements made tonight about threats to murder and violent assaults on a young British worker are completely new to me, and they certainly were not included in any letter sent to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
If such complaints were made at the time, no doubt the police investigated them, but they are completely new to me. I think it is the first time that I have heard mention of a threat of murder, and I have already said that, when he was specifically challenged, the young man Hope admitted that he had not been threatened with violence and said "I have overdone it," and that was the point when the hon. Gentleman interrupted.
If we are to view this not merely as propaganda but as a possible basis for a criminal charge, there are different considerations. There were, first of all, the allegations that there was clearly at least one criminal offence because this document did not bear the printer's imprimatur. My advice is that it is not certain that there is any criminal offence in that respect. The Act which makes it an offence in this country had no extra-territorial effect. I do not think it required the imprimatur on documents printed abroad and subsequently brought into this country, and the legal advice which I have been able to get has been to the effect that there was no possibility of any charge of that kind.
It is conceivable that one might argue that to distribute the document in this country might be an offence, but it is a rather curious argument that to distribute a document which, when it was printed, was not required to comply with this law, might be an offence on the grounds that it did not so comply. That, to put it at its lowest, is a difficult legal point which I am not prepared to dispute with the hon. and learned Gentleman here. What I am clear about is that we might get a technical conviction—and it could be no more than that—but it could not prevent distribution of a document printed abroad from being considered, under these circumstances, as a purely technical conviction, and, since under the Act a prosecution could only be instituted in the name of one of the Law Officers of the Crown, I can hardly imagine that they


would consider it a proper case for action.
There remains the much more serious charge that this document might be a criminal libel. I have not seen the document, and all I know of it is what my hon. and learned Friend has said to me, but I am bound to say, on the face of it, that I do not think he made a very good case. He told us, originally, that it made a few slashes at the British, the Americans, the Swedish and the I.R.O., which they accused of taking bribes. It is not a document likely to be brought within the English criminal law, even though there are slashes at the British. It depends on what they are.

Mr. Pritt: Does not the hon. Gentleman know the definition of a criminal libel in this country? He is a lawyer; I am very sorry, but he is talking nonsense.

Mr. Younger: I do know it. In fact, I took the precaution of arming myself with that information, but I do not think that this is the place in which to debate legal technicalities. I say that, as I have not seen the text, it would be futile to debate the technicalities. I am saying that mere attacks on foreign governments are not in themselves likely to constitute seditious or criminal libels in this country, and that one would have to examine the documents. [Interruption.]If the hon. and learned Gentleman will refer to Archbold, he will find it, as I have done this afternoon. If he had any specific passage in mind, as he has been told once in writing by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, he had only to submit it to the relevant authorities, which, as he told me, include the Home Secretary. But what did he, in fact, offer? He offered that an official might see his copy, if he could not get another one, but only on a personal undertaking by the Secretary of State to return it to him.

Mr. Pritt: Just read it.

Mr. Younger: The hon. and learned Gentleman has read part of it. I asked him the question, and this is what he replied:
If you wish one of your officials to see the one I have, I would prefer to part with it only for a short time and on your personal undertaking to return it to me. This is not meant to be in any way discourteous, and is due only to the peculiar attitude of the Lancashire police.

Let us just consider the implications of this personal undertaking, if my right hon. Friend had been so unwise as to give it. First, if this document had on examination proved to be suitable to form the basis of a criminal trial, I think the hon. Member will agree that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary could not have honoured his undertaking.

Mr. Pritt: He could have asked me to let him have it back.

Mr. Younger: I do not think that alters the validity of my point. My right hon. Friend, had he been rash enough, would have given an undertaking which he could not have honoured. If, on the other hand, it had turned out not to be suitable as the basis of any criminal proceedings—as my hon. and learned Friend knew at the time, the ownership of it was in dispute; it was known that the original recipient in this country claimed it as his property and wanted it back, and that the young man had said to the police that he would do his best to get it back—I think it would, indeed, have been rather rash for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to undertake, in those circumstances, that a document which, on examination, had not proved to infringe the criminal law should, nevertheless, be returned to my hon. Friend instead of to the person who claimed it as his own. At the very least, it would have been very rash of my right hon. Friend to be involved in what turned out to be a lengthy legal dispute.

Mr. Pritt: Why, in those circumstances, did not the Home Secretary write to me and say, "I would like to see this document, but your condition is not useful for that very reason and will you hand it to me unconditionally?"

Mr. Younger: My right hon. Friend did not choose to use that form of words, but he repeated to the hon. and learned Member that he had only to refer it, if he thought it formed the basis of a criminal charge, to the relevant authorities. After all, my hon. and learned Friend is not a child in these matters; he knew quite well that was all he had to do.

Mr. Pritt: The hon. Gentleman has his facts wrong again. That offer was in the first letter. The wording of the first letter wholly ignored my offer, and


it was not until nearly two months later that the right hon. Gentleman referred me to the police.

Mr. Younger: The remark to which I refer was in the letter from my right hon. Friend on 25th October, which said:
If you have such evidence, the right course would be for you to submit it to the authorities responsible for enforcing the law.
That suggestion is still quite good advice, and it is still open to the hon. and learned Member to submit his evidence. If he does so, I can asure him that it will be carefully examined, and not only the document itself, but, also, if he chooses to submit it, any evidence of circulation of further copies.
I should like to point out that if, on examination, my right hon. Friend were to be advised that no criminal prosecution could lie, he would have to look very carefully at the suggestion that action should be taken against foreign workers, or that they should be warned or threatened merely on the ground that they had been expressing political views which may not accord with those of many people in this country.
I repudiate what appeared to be the allegation at the end of the hon. Member's speech, that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in some way, made distinctions in favour of speakers at Fascist meetings and favoured them in a way in which he was not prepared to favour people on the other side. That is absolutely untrue, and there is no possible ground for it. It may well be true that there are limits beyond which an alien living in this country should not go in aggressively promoting political views which are likely to cause ill-feeling. We had a case recently—the case of Scholtz—in which, I am sure, my hon. and learned Friend would not disapprove of the action taken by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. But it is not right to penalise aliens living legitimately in this country merely because they received a document of this kind relating almost exclusively to matters abroad, and from a friend abroad, and because they showed it to a fellow worker who, in turn, showed it to another fellow worker who said he did not like it.
That really is the extent of this. It is, in my view, a storm in a teacup. The

advice is still the same advice which my right hon. Friend gave some weeks ago, that if my hon. and learned Friend warns my right hon. Friend that this may be a criminal document, it is not only his right but his duty to show it to the authorities without attempting to lay down any conditions which are embarrassing. With all respect, I do not think he has produced the evidence to the House tonight. It would not be at all easy to bring a criminal charge according to what he has said. He should look at this very carefully again, and if he still retains his views, then by all means let him show the evidence to us and we will take the appropriate action.

Mr. Pritt: Is the Under-Secretary really suggesting that I would take up the time of the House for the best part of an hour and indulge in a whole series of correspondence with the Home Secretary asserting a criminal offence which I do not believe to be true?

Orders of the Day — ARAB REFUGEES

9.52 p.m.

Mr. Baker White: The matter I desire to raise is very different from the previous topic. It is something which should weigh heavily, not only upon the conscience of the British people, but upon the conscience of the whole world, and that is the condition and the prospects of life and death of the Arab refugees in the Middle East. There has been much controversy over the question of Palestine, but I am anxious, in this opportunity afforded to me, not to add to that controversy in any way. What I wish to raise is a purely humanitarian issue. I wish also to make it clear that I do not seek to attack the Government on this issue. I know that they have been, and are, most active in this matter, and that they are doing what they can to help. I am very grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for having waited so long this evening for this Debate to take place and for having found the time when he must be very pressed in his work.
May I begin by quoting a few facts and figures to give a broad picture of the tragedy of the Arab refugees? At the present time, there are something like 650,000 destitute Arabs in the Middle East, and of that total, approximately half are refugee men, women and children who have fled or have been exiled from their


homes, shops and land as a result of the fighting in Palestine. They include the major part of the Arab population of Jaffa, Haifa, Acre, Ramleh and Lydda. They are distributed over various States. and over 200,000 are still in Palestine itself. There are about 90,000 in Transjordan and about 60,000 in the Lebanon. The refugees in Transjordan equal about one-quarter of the normal population of that country.
What is their composition? The survey made in August and contained in Count Bernadotte's last report to the United Nations gave these figures: under two years of age, 12 per cent.; from three to five years of age, 18 per cent.; from six to 18 years of age, 36 per cent.; pregnant women and nursing mothers, about 10 per cent., and aged, sick and infirm, 8 per cent. That means that 85 per cent. of these refugees are highly vulnerable to attack by hunger, cold and disease. What is their condition? Nearly all are destitute, often without even the tools of their trade. Some, but not all, have a few cooking utensils. Many of them have only the clothes in which they fled. I do not want to be accused of exaggeration, so I will quote the actual words of Count Bernadotte. He said:
Early refugee groups had been accommodated in houses, but later groups congested and overflowed all available forms of shelter. Some 22 per cent. were simply camped on the ground under trees. Water supplies were inadequate, unprotected and a menace to health by infection and lack of control. In fact, an examination of a number of cases in the Ramallah area showed 49 positive typhoid fever cases. There was virtually no provision among the great mass of Arab refugees for the special needs of infants, young children, nursing mothers, pregnant women. the aged and the sick.
That report was written in the summer. Now it is winter. Every day sees less food available for these unhappy people. The highest relief ration was 3½ oz. of bread a day. Quite soon that had to be halved. Recently the 150,000 refugees in the Nablus area had no food deliveries at all for 17 days. The figs and grapes from the orchards were eaten weeks ago.
As Count Bernadotte pointed out, it is not only a question of a shortage of food. There is an acute shortage of shelter as well. Already the bitter winds born in the snows of Mount Herman and the mountains of Syria and the Lebanon are sweeping southwards over the refugee areas, and those winds are much colder

than the wind which was sweeping down Whitehall yesterday. The wind is sweeping over women and tiny children huddled in holes in the ground. Those who have a tent of sackcloth or a wind break of stones are comparatively lucky. Graveyards are favourite camping places, because the gravestones provide some shelter from the wind. Those living in the rock caves round the old Roman theatre at Amman are in comparative luxury. It is true that in Jericho, below sea level, it is warmer than on the high wind-swept plain, but here malaria is waiting to take its toll, for it is inevitable that there will be an influx of refugees from the higher ground. Measles, typhus, dysentery and smallpox have already made their appearance in the refugee areas.
That is the picture. Very little, and sometimes no, food. No milk for the babies. A drinking water ration of a pint a day. Almost no water at all for washing. For thousands no shelter at all. An acute shortage of doctors and medical supplies. That is the condition of 500,000 people, of whom about 150,000 are under six years of age. Five hundred thousand people asking no more of humanity than the right to live. Five hundred thousand people threatened with death from hunger, cold or disease before the winter is over. I quote the words of Brigadier Clayton, who has advised His Majesty's Government so well for a long time on Middle East affairs. He said:
If a very large measure of outside aid is not forthcoming by the end of October, there are unlikely to be many refugees to worry about by the spring.
Today is 9th November. We could picture it better if we imagined what Britain would be like——

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed. without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]

Mr. Baker White: We could picture it better if we imagined what Britain would be like if there were a sudden influx of some 11 million refugees, an addition of 25 per cent. on our population. The Arab League sent 32,000 blankets and Transjordan is spending £8,000 a day in bread alone. The Lebanon raised £20,000 by public subscription in a few


days. The Turks have helped substantially. The Egyptian authorities are maintaining over 100,000 refugees. As the "Economist" put it on 30th October:
The Arab States have scraped their larders and their exchequers.
They have not got the dollars and it is in the dollar areas that the food is to be found—the food that can save a dreadful mass death. His Majesty's Government, private firms and charitable bodies have done a great deal. I understand that, as its first part, Britain has given £100,000 to provide 7,500 tents, 200,000 blankets and medical supplies. The Anglo-American Oil Company has given £50,000. The World Council of Churches is among the charitable bodies that have made substantial contributions. The Iraq Petroleum Company have given 180,000 blankets. Three thousand of them left by air from Bovington airport on Friday night; the rest are being shipped by the fastest possible boats. Could not the R.A.F. Transport Command get some of them out quicker?
Is not this the responsibility of the. United Nations organisation and of the whole world? I believe it is, and to a degree of the Jewish population as well. At the moment that responsibility is being shirked by many nations. One of the last things Count Bernadotte did was to ask for 10,000 tons of goods. Less than 3,000 tons have arrived or are in transit, and 1,100 tons are coming from the Australian Government alone. This is about enough to last to the end of the month.
A sum of 30 million dollars is needed to cover the period December, 1948, to August, 1949–30 million dollars to save the lives of half a million. That works out at about 35s. per refugee per month. They are talking in Paris. The United States Government, who could do so much, are talking, but so far are avoiding taking a decision. As the world talks in its well-warmed conference halls and goes to well-warmed and well-provided restaurants, these refugees are dying in the winter winds in the Middle East. I mentioned the Jewish responsibility. I quote again from Count Bernadotte in this issue:
The immediate solution of the problem appeared to be the return to their homes of those refugees who desired to return. Even though in many localities their homes had been

destroyed, and their furniture and assets dispersed, it was obvious that a solution for their difficulties could be more readily found there than elsewhere. I accordingly submitted to the Provisional Government of Israel, on 26th July, a proposal that, without prejudice to the question of the ultimate right of all Arab refugees to return to their homes in Jewish-controlled Palestine if they desired, the principle be accepted that a limited number, determined by consultation, might be permitted to return to their homes as from 15th August, 1948. The Provisional Government of Israel, however, replied on 1st August, 1948, in substance, that as long as a state of war existed it was not in a position to re-admit on any substantial scale the Arabs who fled. On later occasions it has re-affirmed its unwillingness to take back any refugees at the present time.
I find it tragic that the Jews are sticking to the line that to play their part in helping to keep these refugees alive would be breaking the truce, because it would be helping the Arab Government. I ask them to think again, not in terms of politics or strategy, but in terms of human decency and charity. The United Nations organisation should vote immediately the money required. It should organise aid on an international scale, establish big tent camps for the refugees, fly in medical supplies, doctors and nurses, and divert wheat and food ships to the Middle East ports. Having done that, the United Nations organisation must decide the future dwelling places of the majority of the refugees, because it is evident that most of them cannot now return to their former homes.
My last words are these. We complain often that the United Nations organisation has accomplished little in removing differences between nations. It has now a chance to accomplish much, the chance to act in the cause of compassion and charity which is common both to Christianity and to Islam. It must act very quickly. The mountains are white with snow. Each day the wind blows colder. On it ride the four dreadful Horsemen. We talk much of the Charter of Human Rights. Let us grant to these 500,000 people the simplest right of all—the right to live. This is a challenge to the world—to Christian, to Moslem and to Jew. If we fail to meet it, let us hang our heads in shame and say that we have failed to observe the fundamental principle of our respective faiths.

10.8 p.m.

Major Tufton Beamish: I want briefly to support the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for


Canterbury (Mr. Baker White). I do not want to introduce a note of controversy but I cannot help remarking that during the childish and frivolous effort of the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) to which we have just listened for about an hour, about 35 or 40 Members of the Socialist Party were present. So soon as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury got to his feet to raise this appalling problem of the misery of nearly 600,000 Arab refugees dying by the thousand every day, at least 40 of those hon. Members got up to go out. It seems that that is an extraordinary commentary on the callous way in which we look upon human suffering today.
I want to supplement the figures that my hon. Friend gave regarding the extent of this problem. It may be that my figures are a little more up to date, as they arrived only today and I think that they are entirely accurate. A full statement was made to a Press conference in Paris on 28th October by the Archbishop of Galilee, George Hakim, and he was testifying as Archbishop of Galilee and President of the Refugee Committee in Lebanon and Arab Galilee. He said that the number of refugees should be put at about 600,000, including 100,000 Christians, and that their numbers were distributed as follows: 90,000 in the Lebanon with a population of one million; 140,000 in Syria which has a population of 3 million; 100,000 in Transjordan, which has a population of only 350,000, an increase of roughly 30 per cent. in this population; 100,000 in Judea, where there is a population of 70,000; 50,000 in Samaria with a normal population of 60,000; 75,000 refugees in Egypt and Negeb which have a population of 18 million; 15,000 in Arab Galilee, which has a normal population of 60,000; and 15,000 in Iraq with a normal population of 5 million.
The total number of refugees, on the figures I have given to the House, is 585,000, so the extent of the problem is even more than my hon. Friend said. In fact, almost exactly half the Arab population of Palestine are now refugees. That will give hon. Members some idea of the extent of this problem. And the cause of all this? Nothing more or less than the aggressive military action of the Jews.
All of us in this House, no matter what our party, must have the deepest sympathy for the appalling suffering, the untold suffering—and the story will never be told—of the Jews during the war, but I shall go so far this evening as to say that, as far as I am concerned, their behaviour in Palestine regarding the Arab refugee problem has alienated a great deal of my sympathy, and in present circumstances I feel sure that hon. Members must agree that recognition of the State of Israel is utterly unthinkable. Incidentally amongst the hon. Members who went out from here when this matter was raised were the few hon. Members opposite who are known to hold Zionist views.
The hon. Member for Canterbury painted a terrible picture without exaggeration. His Majesty's Government have, I know, taken a most sympathetic view of this problem and they have done a good deal about it already. I would be the first to say so, and I do not raise this in any critical spirit at all. However, the problem is one of terrible urgency, and so I ask the Under-Secretary to do his best to tell us as fully as he can what more His Majesty's Government can do by their own efforts, and what they propose to do to stress the urgency of the problem in the United Nations organisation which, so far, has manifestly failed to face it.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. Paget: I had great sympathy with the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White) while he based his case upon humanitarian grounds. When the matter descended to crude anti-Semitism, I took a somewhat different view.

Major Beamish: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I take it that I am being accused of crude anti-Semitism. If that is the case, I ask for your protection.

Mr. Speaker: I heard no statement that I could describe as crude anti-Semitism. The hon. and gallant Member disagreed with some of the actions of the Jews, but that is not necessarily crude anti-Semitism because he was perfectly clear that he had great sympathy with the sufferings of the Jews during the second world war.

Mr. George Wigg: Further to that point of Order. The hon. and gallant Gentleman went out of his way to point out the number of my hon. Friends on this side of the House holding Zionist views who had left, but they could not possibly know what the subject of this Adjournment Debate was to be.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of Order. That is the hon. and gallant Member's own affair, not mine.

Mr. Paget: If I have said anything unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker, of course, I withdraw it, but I should like to bring this matter into a sense of proportion. There is war in Israel, and the idea that people who are carrying on a war should accept through their lines hundreds of thousands of their enemies, whose conduct during that war they cannot anticipate, should accept them at a time when they themselves are desperately short of supplies—such a suggestion is fantastically unrealistic.
Let us recognise this situation. The State of Israel was attacked by overwhelming numbers of great States around it. It was a war of aggression designed, and expressly designed, to destroy that new State. Well, the Jewish David smashed this Goliath, and all honour to her to have done so. When war happens refugees are one of the problems. That is why war is such a tragedy. Let us place the blame for that tragedy upon the aggressors. The aggressors here were the large Arab states who set upon this new nation. Theirs is the responsibility for these refugees. I agree that, if they cannot meet their responsibility, starving people are humanity's responsibility. Let us perform our duty, for it is always our duty when people are starving, but do not let us put the blame where it does not lie.

Mr. Pickthorn: I should like to ask the Under-Secretary whether we can be told in his reply what approaches His Majesty's Government have made to the United Nations organisation in this matter.

10.16 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): I will, if I may, avoid entering into the extremely controversial aspects of the Palestine problem which were raised in the speech

of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and some of the controversial statements of the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish), in the interests of looking at this matter in the most constructive way possible as a means of trying to avoid a terrible tragedy this winter in and around Palestine.
I think that the House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White) for raising this subject on the Adjournment tonight. The problem of the Arab refugees has sunk far too little into the world's conscience and the more we can direct to this appalling problem the attention of people who are in a position to help, the greater chance we have of averting tragedy. The picture drawn by the hon. Member for Canterbury was in no way overdrawn. The facts are as set out so plainly and humanely in his speech. I thank him for setting out for me, in a way I could not have done as well myself, the problem that faces us. He has quoted from the Mediator's report many facts and figures which I had intended to present to the House. I thank him also for the appreciation he has expressed of the efforts His Majesty's Government have made to solve this problem.
The picture now in Palestine is a terrible one. Arab refugees number at least 500,000—more than that in fact, since the Jewish attacks in the Negeb and in Gallilee. These 500,000 and more refugees in and around Palestine face hunger, disease and death; smallpox, typhus, typhoid and dysentery are spreading; thousands are forced to camp in the open and winter is approaching. Day by day the situation grows worse, and unless large-scale relief begins to arrive within the next few weeks a terrible disaster is certain.
Let me say a word about relief. So far, the Arab States have borne the brunt of the relief of their refugees. The Syrians are reported as spending £140,000 a month, and the Lebanese only slightly less than that amount; Transjordan, which is almost a ruined State, largely because of this problem, are spending £40,000 a month; Iraq, £13,500 a month; the Egyptian Government, by grants from its military funds, is helping refugees in the Gaza area. Perhaps the heaviest cost of all is borne by the Arab farmers in


Palestine, since these refugees are eating the grain, the fruit, even the unripe olives—destroying the trees, in fact—and everything is disappearing as these refugees inevitably lay hands on any kind of food available to them. Egypt, the Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan are, of course, already importing cereals for their own consumption, quite apart from the needs of the refugees.
On the other hand, stocks of cereals are adequate in all those countries for the local populations and the refugees, for the next two or three months. The worst deficiency area is the Arab area of Palestine, where it is estimated that all the current harvest is exhausted, or will be exhausted by the end of the month, including even any allowances that may have been made for seed. The Arab States have borne the brunt of such aid as has been given so far to the refugees. Apart from the Arab States, the first help was by His Majesty's Government, when we put £100,000 at the disposal of the Disaster Relief Organisation, with which urgently need tents and blankets were supplied from Army stocks in the Middle East. The International Children's Emergency Fund have also sent some 800,000 dollars worth of supplies for women and children Arab refugees. The Mediator made an appeal for 10,000 tons of goods from Governments, to which, unfortunately, Governments responded only to the extent of 3,000 tons.
Those are the small and quite inadequate measures which have been taken so far. The House will want to know what action is being taken now and for the future to tackle this problem. His Majesty's Government took the initiative—I think some two months ago—in bringing the whole problem to the notice of the Security Council, and we have since taken the further initiative in the current Assembly to try to make the Assembly act. The Assembly must act, and it must act quickly, if this problem is to be tackled.
In the last few weeks the United Kingdom delegation, assisted by certain other delegations, have been attempting to push a resolution through the United Nations Assembly demanding, first of all, an effective administration of relief in Palestine. At present there is only the Disaster Relief Organisation existing there with a staff of only 15 persons, set

up by the Mediator and capable only of co-ordinating the efforts of the Arab local authorities, but not of undertaking the great administrative task which is needed, especially in regard to transport, if this problem is to be tackled effectively. Our resolution will aim at requiring the establishment of an effective administration of relief. It will also make an appeal to Governments to contribute funds for the financing of relief supplies and it will appeal for a contribution from the United Nations Working Fund. At the moment, we have a joint resolution with certain other delegations which is going through the committee stage of the United Nations.

Mr. Pickthorn: Which other nations?

Mr. Mayhew: Two of the sponsoring nations are the Netherlands and Belgium.

Mr. Pickthorn: Who are the Goliaths who are resisting?

Mr. Mayhew: Perhaps I may be allowed to continue my speech in my own way. I hope the resolution will be passed and will lay down on the administrative side that a director of relief operations will be appointed to be directly responsible to the United Nations Secretariat, who will be responsible for administering the funds and also for co-ordinating the activities of all the voluntary societies.
On the subject of the appeal, we hope our resolution will secure a favourable vote in the Plenary Session for a grant to cover the minimum requirements of the refugees in the next nine months. Those minimum requirements were estimated by the acting Mediator in the middle of October at some 32 million dollars for 500,000 refugees. As I said before, the recent Jewish attacks will have raised the figure of 500,000 refugees, and the figure of 32 million dollars is related only to the 500,000. I am authorised by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that His Majesty's Government are prepared to make available their appropriate share of this sum. We have already given useful help towards solving this problem, and we intend to give our share, and more than our share, to any new appeal that may be made.
On the subject of the working fund, it is already agreed at the committee stage at the United Nations that five million dollars shall be advanced from the Secre-
tariat's working fund. That is, in effect, a loan which will be repaid out of the Governmental contributions towards the 32 million dollars. It will be a loan in dollars which will be immediately available in the specially critical next few weeks. That is the United Nations initiative for which we are hoping.
Apart from the United Nations Assembly initiative, I can also report that the International Children's Emergency Fund, in addition to the 800,000 dollars to which I have already referred, has agreed quite recently to grant six million dollars for supplies for women and children refugees in Arab countries. That will be an extremely useful contribution, particularly as it is immediately available. This decision followed strong efforts by the United Kingdom Delegation to swing the International Children's Fund Programme Committee round to making this grant.
There is other action outside the Assembly Resolution. The United States, British, Australian and Canadian Governments hope to make available urgently 8,000 tons of flour against subsequent repayments from their Assembly contributions. Again, the British voluntary societies are fully prepared to play their part in helping to solve this problem, particularly in regard to the provision of teams of medical and welfare workers for the refugee camps. A representative of the British Red Cross is at present in the Middle East to assess the extent of the problem in detail. Individuals can help by contributions to the British Society for Relief Abroad. Finally outside the Assembly Resolution, as the hon. Member for Canterbury mentioned, certain bodies are also giving useful

assistance. I would name the Iraq Petroleum Company, which is contributing 180,000 much-needed blankets for relief this winter.
I have tried to give an indication of the effort being made to meet this urgent problem. I do not say that it is enough. I am not at all confident that it is coming quickly enough. Indeed, this international action, though it promises well, is desperately slow when we consider the urgency of the problem today. Nevertheless, I can assure the House that, so far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, we will continue to do out utmost, both unilaterally and by international action, to try to avert the impending disaster in and around Palestine.

Mr. Pickthorn: Can the Under-Secretary tell us what was the date on which His Majesty's Government first approached the United Nations?

Mr. Mayhew: Our first formal approach was to the Security Council. I think that that was some two months ago—perhaps longer—but I cannot give the exact date.

Mr. Keeling: The House will recognise what the British Government are doing, and what British firms like the Iraq Petroleum Company are doing. I think that more ought to be done——

The Question having been proposed at Ten O'Clock, and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half-past Ten O'Clock.